Thread: New Updated Arms Code 2017

I think there is quite a bit pointing to a conspiracy. There was the meeting in Queenstown with a few interested parties, though not representing our community to any great extent. This involved Police from Australia. Also the decision to publish this booklet would not be made by one person from Police, it was a definite decision among a number of Police policy makers, without a lot of outside input, which fits nicely into the category of conspiracy.

They have been relying on the fact that the firearms community have been quite apathetic in the past, not wanting to 'rock the boat' with the authority that is invested with the ability to deny a license. And yes a lot would be based on members of the firearms community not being willing to stump up to a legal challenge where they can just dip into a large pool if challenged. They have been playing the system.

its not a consiracy to make plans to get the law changed... we might not like it, we might even think that its not the the role of the police to try and influence legislative change... but thats not a conspiracy...

so what are you left with... some inaccurate policy application documents.... that might go further that the law allows... but how have any of the inaccuracies actually broken the law... ?? good luck with that

Its not a conspiracy to discourage private arms in the community... nothing unlawful in that. It might be a policy....

Its not a conspiracy to be difficult in the adminstration of the law, thats just impolite.. but it might be a policy to discourage private firearm arm ownership... but no not a conspiracy

I think the problem is that you are all assuming that the police are interested in making your life nicer, at the expense of theirs.... they aren't, just accept it and the word conspiracy goes away...

just make them accountable and don't trust them at all... yes sir no sir.....who is your superior officer? and what address do I complain to???

I don't trust them at all and I was one...

I think you need to check the meaning of conspiracy.

It does not have to be illegal. It just needs to be in secret, it cannot be entirely secret as at least two must be there, and can include attempting to thwart those doing what they are legally entitled to do. Check the above again.

its not in secret and we are talking in a legal context

Originally Posted by Sidney

its not in secret and we are talking in a legal context

The decision to publish was in secret, it would have been in a closed meeting with selected participants. Well does the legal system have it's own legal definition of conspiracy that differs from the everyday dictionary term? I'm using the common form and it fits perfectly.

you can't claim that a meeting about a publication meets that criteria.... "its a conspiracy to make public" isn't wholly logical..

we should just rename every policy meeting, strategy meeting or cabinet meeting........... a conspiracy meeting... it'd be a lot simpler.

examine if you will your reason for choosing the word... you clearly mean to imply either illegality, unethical behaviour, or some form of underhanded activity...

my point is that its not...

I am only bound by what is determined to be the law, as is the case for the police.... we might not like that they push further that we think is acceptable with whatever agenda they have got going on, but if its not illegal and its a public response, then its not a conspiracy... its clearly not secret...??

And yes for legal offences of Conspiracy... there has to be a formed intent to break the law.... what would be the point otherwise...?

"conspiracy" is one of the more misapplied words these days for the "tin foil hat brigade."

Originally Posted by Sidney

you can't claim that a meeting about a publication meets that criteria.... "its a conspiracy to make public" isn't wholly logical..

we should just rename every policy meeting, strategy meeting or cabinet meeting........... a conspiracy meeting... it'd be a lot simpler.

examine if you will your reason for choosing the word... you clearly mean to imply either illegality, unethical behaviour, or some form of underhanded activity...

my point is that its not...

I am only bound by what is determined to be the law, as is the case for the police.... we might not like that they push further that we think is acceptable with whatever agenda they have got going on, but if its not illegal and its a public response, then its not a conspiracy... its clearly not secret...??

And yes for legal offences of Conspiracy... there has to be a formed intent to break the law.... what would be the point otherwise...?

"conspiracy" is one of the more misapplied words these days for the "tin foil hat brigade."

I think those bits you mentioned fit quite nicely.

You are unfortunately limiting yourself to a very narrow definition for I'd say criminal law. To restrict that for everything else is a fallacy. If you take the wider definition then yes any closed meeting to decide on anything that will favour one group and negatively impact another is by definition is a conspiracy. Note that it can be something illegal or evil. So it could be construed that from the point of view of any party that is likely to be disadvantaged by such a decision it could seen it as 'evil'.

still not secret.... having a meeting that concludes that its going to make "public" a policy of something without lawful authority is not a conspiracy..

and dispite your desire to see this as some sort of underhand activity, it is the right of everybody under the law, to test the law... that is the system..

become a part of it.... engage...

treating everything as being out to get us in a waste of time.....most of the time we aren't that important...

Originally Posted by Sidney

treating everything as being out to get us in a waste of time.....most of the time we aren't that important...

Except when we possess firearms?

well that seems to be an area of importance for people on this forum for some reason...

I can't quite ascribe a co-ordinated furtive conspiracy in the arms code talking about things that can be made into firearms, as being a logical attempt to deprive us all our our bits of wood and pieces of pipe....... its only slightly laughable...

if thats a conspiracy, day is pretty bad at it....

Originally Posted by Sidney

still not secret.... having a meeting that concludes that its going to make "public" a policy of something without lawful authority is not a conspiracy..

and dispite your desire to see this as some sort of underhand activity, it is the right of everybody under the law, to test the law... that is the system..

become a part of it.... engage...

treating everything as being out to get us in a waste of time.....most of the time we aren't that important...

Sort of comes under the banner of the victor writes the history books. Now going back in time there were times when the government of the day passed draconian laws, generally guided by the wealthy who had something to gain, in closed session. There was an uprising, the government were overthrown and a new system of government put in place that represented the masses. The new order wrote in the history books that the old government and wealthy conspired to ....

When there is one group that has a monetary/legal status advantage over another group, that in secret (by excluding input from the affected groups, whether by omission or not) attempts to put up barriers to legal activity, that by definition is a conspiracy. Basically they have conspired to attempt thwart the law. Sure that can be challenged at a cost.

Oh, can you tell I'm laid up unable to move?

ah now you probably just need to accept you aint going to get an invite to a police firearms policy meeting, and you haven't yet convinced me that it wasn't just a sub committe meeting of the 2017 Arms Code committee commissioned with providing a legally consistent up to date document..

knowing a wee bit about the difference between policy and strategy and the role of the worker bees, I have a feeling that the sub-managment are just incompetant and the governance level don't really have the finer points nailed either......

I still make the point that the release of non-binding policy to achieve nothing of consequence released into the public arena where all can see.... does not amount to conspiracy...

All such meetings are private..... the intent has not been established and the outcome does not meet a detrimental standard... somebody should get spanked for being useless..

And I am supposed to be writing an essay...

Originally Posted by Sidney

ah now you probably just need to accept you aint going to get an invite to a police firearms policy meeting, and you haven't yet convinced me that it wasn't just a sub committe meeting of the 2017 Arms Code committee commissioned with providing a legally consistent up to date document..

knowing a wee bit about the difference between policy and strategy and the role of the worker bees, I have a feeling that the sub-managment are just incompetant and the governance level don't really have the finer points nailed either......

I still make the point that the release of non-binding policy to achieve nothing of consequence released into the public arena where all can see.... does not amount to conspiracy...

All such meetings are private..... the intent has not been established and the outcome does not meet a detrimental standard... somebody should get spanked for being useless..

And I am supposed to be writing an essay...

I suspect that there is a fair amount of all of the above involved. I'd better pack my troll outfit away and let you carry on. Can't help playing 'devils advocate' every now and then.

good argument

Originally Posted by Sidney

good argument

Back to you're essay and stop getting side tracked so easily.

I do like the line at the bottom of @P38's posts.