A heads up

Spoke to chap today who had family member phone one of those free helplines when feeling a bit stressed.... Yeah all good idea.but nekminute. Police do welfare check etc and house holder has it suggested firearms shouldn't be in house. The young person has zero access to them. I suggested be very careful and watch dates as it COULD be considered a triggering event. Also suggested contacting Nicholas Taylor lawyer for advice. Slippery slope that could turn nasty. Worst bit is young person now doubly stressed as realised the good phonecall has had bad ramifications.

cant like this .... going thru something similar myself ...... without going into it too much he will get a call from the FSA , maybe not for a few months he needs to be proactive because the FSA are not our mates ....... we are still looked at as outliers of society

Oh he proactive alright,think our conversation today will make him more so. Good luck yourself bud. Agree it's a weird world we find ourselves in these days.

the sooner the FSA is taken out of police (who are only qualified to enforce the law and nothing else ) hands and given to an agency run by people that are qualified the better

And don't tell your doctor if you are feeling unwell - they have been told that they have to nark us up to popo

So more men die of treatable diseases?
Oh well, the world had too many people anyway

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 308

And don't tell your doctor if you are feeling unwell - they have been told that they have to nark us up to popo

So more men die of treatable diseases?
Oh well, the world had too many people anyway

---

How so?

A mate with a FAL has been on the decline over the past 6 years due to his liver, he finally made the transplant list early this year, received a donor liver in the last few weeks, he’s on a tonne of drugs so his body doesn’t reject the transplant and will still be in recovery phase for sometime.

No ones come knocking on his door because of his FAL!

This is the whole issue....On the face of it, we want people to reach out if they feel like they need help. And the idea that this help should also include making sure that any means they could likely use for self harm should be removed while they seek help.

But unfortunately that in itself becomes a punishement for seeking help discouraging those who probably should ask for help from asking for that asistance - Making them reconsider and not ask and try to battle through it by themselves potentially compounding the problems and making it even worse. BUT and this is a big BUT..

This is a lose / lose situation and there is no correct answer.....and no correct response. Every situation will be different

I will not say whether I think it is the right or wrong thing to do because I see several different perspectives and each has its own issues.

If the FAL is revoked and person was never in danger of self harm- Police cop it for removing them without reason-
If the person retains their FAL and goes on to self harm or worse - Police cop it too...
If FAL is revoked and person still decides to self harm - Police cop it for not doing more -

There is no situation where the police come away from this situation looking like they did the right thing... The removal of the firearms themselves as a tool for self harm is obvious, but we also have to remember that the FAL also gives us access to purchase or access firearms elsewhere hence why I understand the removal of that as wel

All I can suggest is that if you need help, Ask for it, If I ever am in the position where I need help, I hope I have the courage to ask for it. If you feel like things may be going down that path, dont wait for the autorities to remove the firearms- perhaps get someone to take them from you when you ask for help- Family or another FAL holder and for your own sake, let them know why- even if that is after you seek help.

the issue here tho is not the FAL holder it is someone who resides with them , now the FAL holder has proven over many years that he is fit and proper and takes their security seriously follows the law rgarding access and security to the tee and yet some pencil pushing person (a sworm officer) not qualified to make assessmemts on mental health sitting in some office in wellington will arbitrarily decide that even tho you have met all the security criteria and then some and you are fit and proper law abiding , he will with a stroke of a pen remove your firearms.... under the threat of "if you dont comply we will temporarily suspend your licence" now dont be fooled when they say this when you speak to an arms officer they will tell you temorary suspension ALWAYS leads to revokation. bear in mind this is all done over the phone (by glorified telemarketers) if you ask for it in writing or ask for the name of the guy making the decision you will be told "not until you agree to comply then we will send something in writing" and when that written copy arrives they will have added a whole lot more restrictions you hadnt agreed to

People respond to incentives and the way bullshit castle made the prev govt write these laws, the incentive is not to seek medical help for LFAO due to mandatory reporting

Less medical help = worse health in my book

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Micky Duck

Spoke to chap today who had family member phone one of those free helplines when feeling a bit stressed.... Yeah all good idea.but nekminute. Police do welfare check etc and house holder has it suggested firearms shouldn't be in house. The young person has zero access to them. I suggested be very careful and watch dates as it COULD be considered a triggering event. Also suggested contacting Nicholas Taylor lawyer for advice. Slippery slope that could turn nasty. Worst bit is young person now doubly stressed as realised the good phonecall has had bad ramifications.

---

Exact same thing happened to a mate of mine. His partner just happened to have an "off the cuff" conversation with a nurse at a local medical center. That was enough to trigger the whole chain of events.

It's not an ideal situation, not least because it may dissuade people from seeking help. General practitioners have been put in a difficult position. I'm quite sure most of them would rather have nothing to do it.

https://www.rnzcgp.org.nz/resources/...-firearms-act/

my GP (immigrant pom) actually wants to try shooting. i may have to take him to a farm and let him shoot a few bunnies

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scotty

now dont be fooled when they say this when you speak to an arms officer they will tell you temorary suspension ALWAYS leads to revokation.

---

To be fair here, this is not correct and there have been a couple of cases I am aware of where the initiating complaint was found to be without merit and the licence reinstated. Although to be fair the uplift in one of those cases left a lot to be desired on the attitude front from the gentleman doing the uplift of the firearms and licence. Also the means at which that licence holder was informed left a hell of a lot to be desired too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scotty

the issue here tho is not the FAL holder it is someone who resides with them , now the FAL holder has proven over many years that he is fit and proper and takes their security seriously follows the law rgarding access and security to the tee and yet some pencil pushing person (a sworm officer) not qualified to make assessmemts on mental health sitting in some office in wellington will arbitrarily decide that even tho you have met all the security criteria and then some and you are fit and proper law abiding , he will with a stroke of a pen remove your firearms.... under the threat of "if you dont comply we will temporarily suspend your licence" now dont be fooled when they say this when you speak to an arms officer they will tell you temorary suspension ALWAYS leads to revokation. bear in mind this is all done over the phone (by glorified telemarketers) if you ask for it in writing or ask for the name of the guy making the decision you will be told "not until you agree to comply then we will send something in writing" and when that written copy arrives they will have added a whole lot more restrictions you hadnt agreed to

---

I think that a phone call to Nick Taylor is what is needed here.

No way should they ever withhold their identity. It's almost akin to a blackmail like situation. If they are acting lawfully, there should be no issue to identify ones self, and to go down this track I would suggest is at the very least unprofessional, let alone unlawful.

The FSA will always err on the side of caution, because they do not want the media scrutiny when things go bad. However, good people's rights are being trampled under the weight of this caution.

To be clear. If that phone call from family member contained red flag terms or phrases...yeah well fair enough to FIND OUT what the situation is to be on safer than safe side. Mental health needs looking after.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Micky Duck

To be clear. If that phone call from family member contained red flag terms or phrases...yeah well fair enough to FIND OUT what the situation is to be on safer than safe side. Mental health needs looking after.

---

The ultimate plan is to arrange for alternative accomodation for said young person in case it comes to popo turning up for your guns. Tell them in that case to give him/her/they a lift to the new address, clothes will follow.

It should not come to that as it will make popo think twice.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scotty

the issue here tho is not the FAL holder it is someone who resides with them , now the FAL holder has proven over many years that he is fit and proper and takes their security seriously follows the law rgarding access and security to the tee and yet some pencil pushing person (a sworm officer) not qualified to make assessmemts on mental health sitting in some office in wellington will arbitrarily decide that even tho you have met all the security criteria and then some and you are fit and proper law abiding , he will with a stroke of a pen remove your firearms.... under the threat of "if you dont comply we will temporarily suspend your licence" now dont be fooled when they say this when you speak to an arms officer they will tell you temorary suspension ALWAYS leads to revokation. bear in mind this is all done over the phone (by glorified telemarketers) if you ask for it in writing or ask for the name of the guy making the decision you will be told "not until you agree to comply then we will send something in writing" and when that written copy arrives they will have added a whole lot more restrictions you hadnt agreed to

---

After reading the Ops post, right you are.

If the person who they are concerned about does not have access to the firearms and they are stored securely, then while it may warrant a discussion with the LFAO to be mindful of their situation and perhaps pay more attention to securty rather than trust the person wont try, then I dont have an issue with it. Also if someone in my household was having issues that needed assistance I would look to store my firearms offsite anyway without having to be asked. If Plod then visits and states they dont want firearms onsite the response is - Yup- Already stored elsewhere. All good, nothing to see here, move along now.....

If you pre empt being asked these things and err on the side of caution, when they get stroppy they lose all their ammo so to speak and they no longer have an argument to present...

lets get this clear -beyond rudimentary mental health training GPs etc are not qualified to diagnose mental health illnesses .to clarify if you or your rellies start revealing verbal or physical matters of concern re your life then and only then can the GP act .
Ive been down this road witrh ACC wh ilst Iwas working in mental health .after a particularly traumatic incident i was placed on stress leave and ACC of course wanted me back on the job .
My locum GP and counsellor both told then they were not qualified to make any decisions re my mental fitnessand that was that .actually i took things into my own hands and resolved the matter -how well thats my secret.

secondly -as a practising psychiatric nurse i had on two occasions cause to believe FALOs were actively suicidal and at such risk revocation of such licenses and removal of FAL was required.
THEN METAL HEWALTH ACT SAYS NOTHING ABOUT REMOVAL OF FIREARMS LICENSE ONLY DRIVING LICENSE .the latter in fact may be reinstated if one comes off the act and passes an assessment.
following a cxdiscussion with my employers legal counsel action was taken .
turns out license was handed in to cops years prior and firearm was a broken down air pistol .

sadly a wee while late a 12g shell in a b it of galv pipe into his vice and with hammer and nail he terminated proceedings.

my other action was thwarted by rellies and local copper-an agreement to remove the license while episode in progess -dont tell anyone .
broke my bloody heart when I read the blokes death notice and was later informed following disagreement with a family member a.270 self inflicted ended it!

If FSA or the boys in blue think confiscation is the answer then their shoes will stay dry pissing into a norwester ,judging by the way miscreants are culling those who they dont like.

BTW advertised yesterday another left wing antis whinge fest h to be hosted in chch by none other than the oppositions police spokesman .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kotuku

lets get this clear -beyond rudimentary mental health training GPs etc are not qualified to diagnose mental health illnesses .to clarify if you or your rellies start revealing verbal or physical matters of concern re your life then and only then can the GP act .
Ive been down this road witrh ACC wh ilst Iwas working in mental health .after a particularly traumatic incident i was placed on stress leave and ACC of course wanted me back on the job .
My locum GP and counsellor both told then they were not qualified to make any decisions re my mental fitnessand that was that .actually i took things into my own hands and resolved the matter -how well thats my secret.

secondly -as a practising psychiatric nurse i had on two occasions cause to believe FALOs were actively suicidal and at such risk revocation of such licenses and removal of FAL was required.
THEN METAL HEWALTH ACT SAYS NOTHING ABOUT REMOVAL OF FIREARMS LICENSE ONLY DRIVING LICENSE .the latter in fact may be reinstated if one comes off the act and passes an assessment.
following a cxdiscussion with my employers legal counsel action was taken .
turns out license was handed in to cops years prior and firearm was a broken down air pistol .

sadly a wee while late a 12g shell in a b it of galv pipe into his vice and with hammer and nail he terminated proceedings.

my other action was thwarted by rellies and local copper-an agreement to remove the license while episode in progess -dont tell anyone .
broke my bloody heart when I read the blokes death notice and was later informed following disagreement with a family member a.270 self inflicted ended it!

If FSA or the boys in blue think confiscation is the answer then their shoes will stay dry pissing into a norwester ,judging by the way miscreants are culling those who they dont like.

BTW advertised yesterday another left wing antis whinge fest h to be hosted in chch by none other than the oppositions police spokesman .

---

That's another of the can't like but it really should be liked posts...

Just to be clear, general practitioners are not required to make a diagnosis of mental illnesses illness, but they do have to report concerns.

Through my profession I work in a confidential space with people. In that space I have from time to time had individuals threaten to harm themselves or to harm others - with and without firearms.
My professional duty of care goes beyond the confidentiality and I have reported some of these instances after I have objectively assessed the seriousness of the threat.
Not exclusively to the Police, but on more than one occasion to the police. I haven't been privy to the outcome.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tahr

Through my profession I work in a confidential space with people. In that space I have from time to time had individuals threaten to harm themselves or to harm others - with and without firearms.
My professional duty of care goes beyond the confidentiality and I have reported some of these instances after I have objectively assessed the seriousness of the threat.
Not exclusively to the Police, but on more than one occasion to the police. I haven't been privy to the outcome.

---

@Tahr

Ever had any back-lash from those you reported?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Maxx

@Tahr

Ever had any back-lash from those you reported?

---

No. It's mainly been self harm and I manage it with them.
The people who have threatened others I have terminated the process, told them why I have terminated, and sometimes reported to the Police, and never seen the person again.
The contract that the people sign with me has a clause in it allowing me to terminate and report "where people or property might be harmed or damaged".
Mostly these things are said in the heat of the moment so it requires some enquiry, analysis and judgement to decide if the threat is real.