Just what I was taught in my commercially law classes back in the day.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beetroot
I'm sure you could find this on Google.
The case taken to the high court was over the thumb hole stock interpretation.
Cheers
Pete
Printable View
Just what I was taught in my commercially law classes back in the day.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beetroot
I'm sure you could find this on Google.
The case taken to the high court was over the thumb hole stock interpretation.
Cheers
Pete
Looks like some pin head plod has been reading the UK firearms laws they have this justification BS and much worse, If they go the UK way we are screwed good and proper,
Paula Bennett and all the other MP's will follow the party line even if they don't agree with it, people have to decide if they want to keep their guns or not at the election,
It's not just the guns it is also the whole outdoors the Government make nice noises about the environment but when it comes to the crunch they back off and think about
their tax revenue and their financial supporters they don't give a toss about the average citizen.
the U.K in brief.Quote:
Originally Posted by shooternz
disarm the populace thru misinformation
allow immigrants/refugees who want sharia law and let them.
still have a police force thats unarmed yet militants and radicals can get weapons
give lenient sentences for violent crime to not upset aforementioned groups
watch hell coming on the horizon
now i do not want to give the opinion that legal firearms lawyers want them for self defense but that we are being disarmed as an excuse for unlawful firearms violence.
It looks like a step in the direction of Australia - must provide a "genuine reason" (or similar wording) for owning firearms to obtain a license. Of course anyone going through the process of legally obtaining a license goes through the process of legally joining SSAA or whatever as a "genuine reason" and it's just a waste of everyone's time.
Plumbers better be getting Firearms Licences by that definition.Quote:
Originally Posted by stretch
35 years ago when I was at university we were "firing" empty 1 litre drink bottles out of 4" PVC pipes using water and dry ice as propellant. By the above defintion that's a firearm - therefore plumbers with PVC pipes need a FAL and hardware stores need 'D' cat FALs.
Hi all, I’ve been lurking here for a while but have been galvanized to join and comment on this thread.
I have blatantly plagiarized the work timattalon and P38 (thanks) and drafted a letter to my MP. I have six specific questions for him at the bottom of the letter but would like some advice from members on the second, scroll down to see.
Any other comments or suggestions gratefully received
Dear David
I am writing with a query as to why the updated Police publication of the Arms code has been altered to reflect requirements that are NOT law.
We are now expected to answer a question when renewing our licenses that is not even closely worded into the Arms Act or any subsequent amendments.
If I were a cynic, I would say that this updated arms code (which I acknowledge is not the Act) has been written in advance of the Firearms review which is currently under consideration and in anticipation of acceptance of the ‘secret’ submission made by the police
On page 41 of the new firearms code it states;
"A firearms license allows the holder to have and use sporting type shotguns and rifles. A license holder may possess any number of sporting-type rifles and shotguns although you will be required to justify the number of firearms you hold when the Police inspect your security. A firearms license is valid for ten years unless revoked or surrendered sooner"
There is no reference in the arms act for an A category license holder to justify what firearms they hold therefore this "justifying" is not legally required and has been added ultra vires into the guide by the Police.
There is no definition of what is justified and what is not, and this is purely a subjective measure which has no place in an official publication.
Is ‘because I wanted it’ a suitable justification?
Is ‘because I am legally entitled to own such a firearm’ a suitable justification?
I am concerned that should I refuse to justify my firearms (as there is no legal requirement to do so) that the police may use that to deny my renewal, perhaps in their view I am no longer ‘fit and proper’ because I have dared to challenge them.
This appears to be another example of the Police overstepping their jurisdiction and trying to write law rather than enforce it.
Perhaps you could remind the Police Commissioner that under the Westminster system of government that;
The legislators make the law,
The judiciary interpret the law,
The Police uphold the law,
Furthermore, changes to the wording of the definition of a firearm has been so poorly worded as to make it meaningless, or, if the wording was intentional, so open to interpretation and subjective measure (that term again) so as to give the police carte blanche to act unilaterally.
Section one, 1a, definition of a firearm.
The term "has been" is now "can be" in the definition of a firearm. The big problem here is ANY piece of steel or metal CAN be adapted to discharge any shot, bullet or projectile by force of explosive. In fact, it does not have to be metal either. You could drill a hole in a piece of wood, fill it with powder and cap it with a projectile and ignite it. So by definition even a piece of wood falls under this description. Look around your office where you are sitting as you read this. Is there any metal tube? (Metal pen, Chair or table legs, gas struts from adjustable chairs, Plastic tubing or plumbing) Because they can be closed at one end and turned into a closed tube, these could now be considered "firearms" by that definition....It is simply that poorly written.
Would you please seek a response from the Minister or Police Commissioner as to the following.
WRT the justification clause;
1. On what basis have the Police added the justification clause to the arms code?
2. Is there any empirical evidence that shows that a justification clause will reduce the illegal use of firearms. Question for the forum. Could the argument be had that less firearms in the legal domain = less firearms in the criminal domain? I am sure I have read a couple of publications that suggest there is no correlation between legally held firearms and illegal use but cannot be sure.
3. Was the Minister aware of the change?
WRT to the definition of a firearm
1. What was the intention of the change of wording from ‘has been’ to ‘can be’?
2. Were the Police aware of the impact of the change of wording?
3. Was the Minister ware of the change of wording?
Yours sincerely
Nice that will be an interesting reply! Oh and welcome to the forum :thumbsup:
Please post reply if you get One!
Well I think some of the emails may have worked, I can't find the Arms Code 2017 on the Police website anymore, the Korean and Chinese 2013 are there and it states the The arms code is currently in development.
I've set an alert up so I'm notified via email as soon as that website changes.
Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk
Bullshit.Quote:
Originally Posted by systolic
Are you completely ignorant of whats happened elsewhere in the world?Quote:
Originally Posted by systolic
There I fixed that. Based on his post history yes I think is the answerQuote:
Originally Posted by 300CALMAN
Sent from my SM-A510Y using Tapatalk
Attachment 69230
This is the only bullshit going on here.
Well guess what turned up in the mail today with my notice of time to renew. Do I need to send it back to the printers :D
Attachment 69233
I cannot understand why the arms code is in development - there has been no change to the law; ergo no need to change the arms code. More sneaky tactics I think - and more seeds of distrust. The top brass really need a lesson in relationship management together with "cause & effect analysis."Quote:
Originally Posted by stug
Some of the info in the arms code actually looked really good and was very informative. It was only a couple of points where they had overstepped their authority.
@outdoorladQuote:
Originally Posted by outdoorlad
Keep it
Enter it into the evidence file. :)
Cheers
Pete
But they havent printed them yet, you must be imaging it
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/201...d4fee58a40.jpg
Sent from my SM-T330 using Tapatalk
Ah no @Nickoli - What you're seeing here is a classic Cluster#$%& from a communications Project thats been running in the background timed to coincide with a release out of the back of the parliamentary review. That The Police thought this was a slam dunk to get the new words around they were seeking out the back of the policy review into a new process you'd already prepared - classically it's where left hand isn't talking to the right hand. Oh yeah - they've been caught out royally!!
To change written printed and online material is a major project and takes considerable time, effort and dollars. Just the changes to layout printing and proofing would have taken weeks if this project hasn't been moving towards this point for at least 2 months.
Their project management and sign-off gates have failed them in this case though as they obviously didn't stop when the Minister said - "hang on lets take a look at this" and review. It is a election year after all and consultation had to be seen to be entertained or it was a free hit to NZ First.
This publication shows pretty clearly Intent, and not just how the Police Assn feel - but NZ police asa whole that ultimately - They feel they need more control over the situation and the course of least resistance is by influencing our actions through publicly stated policy, in the form of the Arms code - rather than the strict rule of law ,the Act and it's testing in a court of law... as that would take time,money and effort - Change the Arms Act nah- much easier the code itself and we can do that ourselves without a degree of oversight... Really - how's that working for ya fellas?....
Dangerous ground politically undermining your minister like this -a big oneI would say - but I guess they would argue a legitimate technique to influence outcome once the political questions start coming in. Just remember guys - People don't judge you by your intentions, they judge you by your actions, and this has been a big one.
For my dollars my challenge to NZ Police - is be truthful and honest in your consultation - and allow law abiding, good and proper citizens to exercise their rights unfettered. You may have gotten concessions from the likes of ourselves if we believed in the outcome and your motivations -but I think that ship has sailed for the next few years....
Oh and your PM and legal team need to go on a course or two....!!
Go take a look in the mirror champ......Quote:
Originally Posted by systolic
B
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carpe Diem
stealing this and posting on facebook, fabulously said.
@nzverminQuote:
Originally Posted by nzvermin
Outdoor lad must also be imagining that he has received a printed copy.
However he must be a bloody clever bloke as he seems to have been able to photograph his imagination. ( ref post #56)
Cheers
Pete
Are you saying the police in New Zealand want to take everyones guns off them?Quote:
Originally Posted by 300CALMAN
Yeah!Quote:
Originally Posted by systolic
Cheers
Pete
Hmmmmmm @nzvermin can you find out for us what time that release went from NZP to Pistol NZ Please.
Policy analysts/ lawyers don't work after 6pm unless the "fit has hit the Shan!" - be interesting to see if they are in damage control mode oooh and @stretch when the online version of the 2017 arms code was rolled back out of production.
Cheers Fella's!
CD.
Can't tell you when the 2017 version went up on the website nor when it was pulled today, because I didn't have monitoring set up. I have now, so will know (to the minute) when it is back up, if ever.Quote:
Originally Posted by Carpe Diem
I wonder how many hard copies they had printed, and at what cost. Especially if they go back, fix their mistakes, and reprint the booklets.
I'd make an oia request but I bet they don't hold data on it.......
Go and fuck yourself.Quote:
Originally Posted by shift14
SNOOOOOOOOOOOORE !!!!! or should I say MEOOOOOWQuote:
Originally Posted by systolic
I'm doing a training session in a couple of weeks with 10 young teenagers and sort some training material so went on the police web site, found the 2017 code, called Onehunga police station and collected 15 copies free of charge. There's plenty out there!Quote:
Originally Posted by muzza
@Svlvester they will definetly have data on how many copies were printed and at what cost. They have to explain all their spending.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sylvester
I was handed one with my renual form in the back but did not get one with my reminder a week later.
Sent from my SM-G800Y using Tapatalk
Stop quoting that troll please, as I've blocked him, but see his posts when you quote his dribble.
Oh, can someone please ban his arse for repeated offensive language posts.
Not sure if it's been suggested yet, but my theory is that this release was entirely intentional, and ties in with the select committee recommendation that the stuff in the police arms manual be brought into legislation (or words to that effect).
Police saw this as an opportunity to write a wishlist into their arms code in the hope that no one noticed and it snuck into law.
Dreamers.
Yes it was a cynical attempt at coercing new firearms owners to think there was a new law and if they refused to justify their firearms ownership they would be denied a licence. A classic example of small incremental "reasonable" changes having a big effect over time.
Have a week off and don't be such a massive punisher when you come back, I'm sick of getting emails when your posts get reportedQuote:
Originally Posted by systolic
Received this over night from Antique Arms. Andrew is the NZAHAA Rep on COLFO.
"Hi All
There has been a fair ammount of discussion and concern expressed regarding the publication of the 2017 Arms Code on the Police web site. This was an early draft mistakenly published. Please read below which is from an email sent to FACF members this evening that will clarify the situation.
Please circulate around your memberships ASAP to avoid further confusion.
As always if you have questions or concerns please contact me
Thanks and regards
Andrew
You will all be aware that Police’s Response and Operations Group has been reviewing the Arms Code – last published in 2013. Some of you may have been consulted on aspects that needed updating.
Today it came to the attention of Police National Headquarters that an early version had been placed on Police’s internet site. Members of the firearms community have correctly noted errors in this document.
For your information the document has been taken off the website. It is our intention to complete our review of the Arms Code and this process will include consultation with FCAF members. The aim is for the update to be published in hard copy form and on the website by mid-July."
What a load of bollocks, early draft maistakenly published. What about all the hard copies given out with firearms licence renewals? No way do you mistakenly publish those. That had to be a commercial contract and signed off by people in high places.
