Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the NZ Hunting and Shooting Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Terminator Alpine


User Tag List

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 17
Like Tree26Likes

Thread: Interesting document

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2022
    Location
    Carterton
    Posts
    548

    Interesting document

    Those who have been following the issue of gangs doing drive by shootings etc might be interested in this document:
    https://www.justice.govt.nz/assets/D...tion-Bill3.pdf

    Most of it is benign and squarely aimed at gangs. One issue that has broader coverage is the issue of discharging a firearm with the intent to intimidate. Currently it's an offence if directed toward a dwelling etc. But there's currently a loophole of sorts if the discharge is in a public place and not directed at a dwelling or persons therein. In the document there are options to close this loophole.
    So far so good. Loopholes arent good if they let bad guys off scott free (or close).

    However, I imagine the proposal also captures a farmer on the boundary using a shotgun to intimidate/deter rustlers and result in a jail sentence and/or a firearms prohibition order. I have no direct experience and wouldn't do something like that myself, but I'm wondering if it is intentional or whether the drafting of the law will give judges discretion for those non-gang related instances. The document acknowledges the wider effect.

    Any legal eagles who have an opinion? Not interested in death-by-a-thousand-cut conspiracy replies

    Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

  2. #2
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2022
    Location
    Papakura
    Posts
    1,390
    The link didn't open for me but based on what you say, I think there could be a strong chance of someone been caught in it under the situation you described even though it was intended to be aimed at the gangs.
    Eat Meater likes this.

  3. #3
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Location
    Wellington
    Posts
    1,714
    Quote Originally Posted by Eat Meater View Post
    However, I imagine the proposal also captures a farmer on the boundary using a shotgun to intimidate/deter rustlers and result in a jail sentence and/or a firearms prohibition order.
    My understanding of NZ law was always there was never any room for warning shots.

  4. #4
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Location
    Central Otago
    Posts
    2,259
    If you are forced use a firearm under the self-defense provisions in the law, then your first shot must be effective to protect yourself or another person. It could be argued in Court that the time taken to fire warning shots should have been spent moving away. You should note that the Police do not fire warning shots. They announce that they have a firearm (as anyone else in that situation should) and if the threat persists then direct-action is your only recourse.
    rugerman, BSA, Micky Duck and 7 others like this.

  5. #5
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2022
    Location
    Carterton
    Posts
    548
    Quote Originally Posted by No good names left View Post
    The link didn't open for me but based on what you say, I think there could be a strong chance of someone been caught in it under the situation you described even though it was intended to be aimed at the gangs.
    Well, well. They've pulled it. Interesting...

    Always identify your target beyond all doubt because you never miss and I will be missed
    Ranger 888 likes this.

  6. #6
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2022
    Location
    Carterton
    Posts
    548
    No warning shots allowed was my understanding too, but the penalty for a warning shot is a lot lower than the imprisonment proposed. I see the document has been taken down. Trying not to read too much into that.

    Always identify your target beyond all doubt because you never miss and I will be missed
    Last edited by Eat Meater; 27-09-2022 at 04:29 PM. Reason: Trying to insert quote

  7. #7
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Location
    South Canterbury
    Posts
    1,510
    The old law has always stated that you must not discharge a firearm in a way that scares or frightens someone as far as I'm aware.
    If shots are fired at your house and it doesn't scare you you're a pretty brave person.

  8. #8
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2022
    Location
    Carterton
    Posts
    548
    It's a pity the document has been pulled offline so you can see what I mean. I'll keep an eye out.

    Always identify your target beyond all doubt because you never miss and I will be missed

  9. #9
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    Wellington
    Posts
    2,586
    The issue is that a warning shot is solely intended to intimidate.

    Sometimes it can be an effective deterrent. A classic case is where a firearm is presented early in a developing situation and the criminal thinks better and leaves. Now, where a criminal can't see the firearm, a warning shot announces it's presence unequivocally. Shouting "I have a gun" may be taken as a bluff. By not shooting a warning shot, you could be ensuring that the criminal will be shot, as he continues his actions unaware of the presence of the firearm.

    I can't see why someone that stops a crime or de-escalates a situation with a warning shot should be prosecuted. Anything that gives a goon pause for thought is a good thing in my book. Just my $0.02
    Sasquatch and Eat Meater like this.

  10. #10
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Location
    Central Otago
    Posts
    2,259
    Section 48 of the current Arms Act below:

    Discharging firearm, airgun, pistol, or restricted weapon in or near dwellinghouse or public place
    A person commits an offence and is liable on conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months, or to a fine not exceeding $10,000, if the person, without reasonable excuse, discharges a firearm, airgun, pistol, or restricted weapon in or near a dwellinghouse or a public place so as to—
    (a)
    endanger property; or
    (b)
    endanger, annoy, or frighten any person.

    The highlighted excerpt permits 'warning shots, etc' by implication if it is done to prevent the commission of a crime in the appropriate circumstances.

  11. #11
    Member Ftx325's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2020
    Location
    Nelson
    Posts
    3,128
    Quote Originally Posted by Eat Meater View Post
    It's a pity the document has been pulled offline so you can see what I mean. I'll keep an eye out.

    Always identify your target beyond all doubt because you never miss and I will be missed
    Hey @Eat Meater, you don't need to rewrite your "miss/missed" thing every time at the end of your post , it does it automatically at the bottom of your posts.... like my born to hunt thingamajig...
    (Just in case you didn't realize , see your first post on this thread for example)
    Maca49 and Ross Nolan like this.
    born to hunt - forced to work

  12. #12
    A shortish tall guy ROKTOY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Location
    Nelson
    Posts
    3,406

  13. #13
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2022
    Location
    Carterton
    Posts
    548
    Quote Originally Posted by Ftx325 View Post
    Hey @Eat Meater, you don't need to rewrite your "miss/missed" thing every time at the end of your post , it does it automatically at the bottom of your posts.... like my born to hunt thingamajig...
    (Just in case you didn't realize , see your first post on this thread for example)
    Ha! I don't. Must be a tapatalk error. Not showing up on my posts on my phone.

    Always identify your target beyond all doubt because you never miss and I will be missed

  14. #14
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2022
    Location
    Carterton
    Posts
    548
    Quote Originally Posted by ROKTOY View Post
    No. That's the BORA statement. I linked to an 88p document written by officials after the decision had already been made. Like a post-hoc regulatory impact statement, redacted in parts.

    Always identify your target beyond all doubt because you never miss and I will be missed

  15. #15
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2022
    Location
    Hawks bay at moment
    Posts
    628
    Wouldnt it just be a case of, if you fire a firearm in anyway what so ever and the police get notified by a member of the public
    You better not be near any public place
    Your gonna get the 3rd degree and the burden is on you to prove your right.
    Your a danger till then.
    Eat Meater likes this.

 

 

Similar Threads

  1. Looks interesting...
    By Preacher in forum Firearms, Optics and Accessories
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 14-10-2021, 06:45 PM
  2. Interesting old vid
    By chrome in forum Firearms, Optics and Accessories
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 05-08-2014, 04:02 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Welcome to NZ Hunting and Shooting Forums! We see you're new here, or arn't logged in. Create an account, and Login for full access including our FREE BUY and SELL section Register NOW!!