Thread: New Updated Arms Code 2017

lawyers could be worser....

Originally Posted by Sidney

lawyers could be worser....

Essay!

It would seem things only get better and better for us fit and proper people

Shamelessly stolen from FOUNZ justification-the-precursor-to-confiscation/

All this talk of “justification” had us wondering what would happen if an Arms Officer/inspector decided that our justification for owning an A Cat firearm was not good enough. Well it seems that our fears may be have been realised.

A member reported that he recently had his new address inspected. Here is what he told us:

“He then pulled out a form wanting to know what firearms I had, condition, serial number and why I needed it, also how much ammo I had!? When I said that’s not the law he replied ‘no it’s not law but if you refuse I’m sure the police will do an enforced inspection within a few days and may confiscate any firearms and ammunition they deem unnecessary'”

When asked what “unnecessary ammunition” meant he was told:

“ammunition that may be used in b,e or c class or more than you need” !

FOUNZ Comment:

Wow. Confiscation of any firearm and ammunition that Police “deem” unnecessary. There it is.

On what grounds could an “enforced inspection” be carried out? Subpart 6 of the Search & Surveillance Act 2012 does allow for warrantless searches if Police have reasonable grounds to suspect that you are in breach of the Arms Act.

There is no section of the Act however that relates to “unnecessary” firearms or ammunition. There is also no requirement to provide the information requested by this inspector.

Refusal to submit to an non-mandatory request should not be considered “reasonable grounds” to be suspected of being in breach of the Act.

Similarly, license holders should not be threatened with being treated as a potential criminal in order to coerce them into complying with such a request.

Have any of you received similar treatment? If so PM us and let us know what happened. Take a photo/copy of the form too.

Do we have laws on blackmail and extortion?

he should tried that with me.... they pick n choose their audience

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...

I see the conspiracy statement as information correlated in private and released publicly with the intend to deceive. if the deception is not thwarted then a law is passed, politicians do it all the time before you know it somethings illegal.

Originally Posted by gadgetman

Do we have laws on blackmail and extortion?

I'm starting to form the opinion that "laws" only apply to certain groups as much as I would prefer to believe otherwise

he should tried that with me.... they pick n choose their audience

@Sidney that makes 2 of us.

Originally Posted by mucko

I see the conspiracy statement as information correlated in private and released publicly with the intend to deceive. if the deception is not thwarted then a law is passed, politicians do it all the time before you know it somethings illegal.

pretty hard to do that with 3 readings, public submissions and complete records of all debates..

do you live in china?

and its not a law....

Originally Posted by Sidney

bullocks... what feature of the grand plan is he exercising...?

what strategic advantage do they get by insisting what address the rifle has to be sent to?

the guys a dick, and he's not competant, and he likes to think he makes the rules... but a conspiracy would be an agreement to knowingly break the law... what law is he breaking?

of course its incompetance....

give up the tin foil hat mate...

Piss off his attitude was boardering on threatening behaviour, we don't need people like this as AOs

Originally Posted by Sidney

well... the only accountability that exists for us is going to come from us... we don't like it - make sure they are challenged.. accountability aint going to come from the pollies...

say yes sir no sir, but tell them it is not lawful and that u will be making a complaint. Then make the complaint and follow it up....

tell us about it after you have done that...

And that's what I'm going to do,

Originally Posted by Sidney

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...

He wasn't going to hang on the phone long enough to ask those questions, he was hanging up!! The conversation was not continuing!!

Originally Posted by Maca49

And that's what I'm going to do,

good job.... let us know

Originally Posted by Jexla

Sorry I need to keep them. We uploaded a digital copy here: https://www.docdroid.net/aRDYhK7/nzp...code4.pdf.html

Gonna get a firearms barrister to look at this through the week. Thanks.

Originally Posted by Sidney

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

Funny how many ex cops I know that say this, and how incompetent many are.

Originally Posted by Sidney

pretty hard to do that with 3 readings, public submissions and complete records of all debates..

do you live in china?

and its not a law....

did you see the three public submissions to have my company removed from the company registrar? if not why not? its in public three times. if you didn't maybe because it wasn't relevant to you or you were distracted by something else. no different to anything else put out to the public. if someone is not looking for it in public you wont see it, or your distracted with a topic that is closer to your heart. you sit there and regurge all this stuff as if it is infallible. you want to believe the system is a good system good for you I don't believe that this kind of crap is incidental its like saying the fuel companies didn't push us to breaking point with the price of fuel then backed it off enough for us to stop a shit storm. now we still get reemed at the pump and fuel companies are reaping huge profits. its the same phycology they use when testing our thresh hold to tolerate law change, they test the water with a misprinted publication oh shit uprising oh yeah sorry about that it was a misprint. no up rising wait until no bastard is in the house to oppose slip it though with some other shit. that's the real world. I do wonder if you paid by the government Sidney. your not Gerry brownlee are you.