Thread: 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

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.

Originally Posted by Eat Meater

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.

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.

Originally Posted by No good names left

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

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

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.

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

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

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.

Originally Posted by Eat Meater

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)

@Eat Meater Is this what you were referencing?
https://www.justice.govt.nz/assets/D...as-amended.pdf

Originally Posted by Ftx325

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

Originally Posted by ROKTOY

@Eat Meater Is this what you were referencing?
https://www.justice.govt.nz/assets/D...as-amended.pdf

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

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.