New Updated Arms Code 2017

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Maca49

Hes some AO logic for you, I have been to the AO and filled in a form to procure a new rifle from down country. I have given my work address as the place I would like it delivered to because I am at work all day to receive it.
But no, it can only be del to my home address where it will sit at the front door, or a courier depot?
I argued that the safest place for del was my work. He told me that was not one of my choices and he would not issue me a permit unless I gave him one of the options on the form for del.
I told him that I didnt think that was law, he said it was police interpretations and he wouldnt talk to me any further, it was my residence or a courier company and I could ring back with what I was going to do and he was not going to continue the conversation and would hang up!!
really logic, no wonder we lose firearms in this country.

---

I have dealt with the same issue.

You are absolutely correct. The law does not restrict where your firearm or ammunition is sent.

What he, and many in POLHQ don't get, is that the s43a is not a 'permit'. It is merely verification that that a Police Officer has sighted your licence and you are a a 'fit and proper person'.

No legal requirement to use 'their form'. No legal requirement that your purchase is sent to an 'approved location'.

Thankfully some people know the law, and aren't concerned with the Police 'interpretation'. Once the seller receives the endorsed form, they can send it anywhere you ask them too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by systolic

Bullshit.

---

not bullshit its a nato plan to disarm the citizen and we are a member of nato

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Koshogi

I have dealt with the same issue.

You are absolutely correct. The law does not restrict where your firearm or ammunition is sent.

What he, and many in POLHQ don't get, is that the s43a is not a 'permit'. It is merely verification that that a Police Officer has sighted your licence and you are a a 'fit and proper person'.

No legal requirement to use 'their form'. No legal requirement that your purchase is sent to an 'approved location'.

Thankfully some people know the law, and aren't concerned with the Police 'interpretation'. Once the seller receives the endorsed form, they can send it anywhere you ask them too.

---

I was told on know uncertain terms I had three choices and I had to choose one or he would not issue the S43a and I couldnt buy the rifle by post, I chose the worse option for thief, if it goes missing he told me I had no choice, he will be getting a call. We rang a friendly AO in Auck and was told they are not enforcing it, logic rules, it would have come to me at work. I will be asking his boss what is going on, once I get my rifle. The mans not fit to hold the position!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mucko

not bullshit its a nato plan to disarm the citizen and we are a member of nato

---

Just as a wee help... NATO = North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. NZ is not in the North Atlantic, and we don't belong to that group. What you probably meant to say was the UN, as in the United Nations and we are a member of that group.

There are apparently a number of policy related documents and trade restriction treaties in place that affect private citizen rights to acquire, but in so far as directly affecting ownership within sovereign states is concerned that is solely a matter for that nation to decide.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sidney

There are apparently a number of policy related documents and trade restriction treaties in place that affect private citizen rights to acquire, but in so far as directly affecting ownership within sovereign states is concerned that is solely a matter for that nation to decide.

---

Although it appears POLHQ have "volunteered" to do some of this UN arms-control malarkey...

I would tend to ascribe general incompetance to the administration of the law by the police rather than conspiracy....

What they are learning however is that we are taking more notice.... :roll:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sidney

I would tend to ascribe general incompetance to the administration of the law by the police rather than conspiracy....

What they are learning however is that we are taking more notice.... :roll:

---

Its not incompetence! It is knowingly manipulating the law and abuse of power to carry on like the dip shit did yesterday

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...

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...

I was talking to an experienced criminal defence lawyer the other day, and they related that they had on several occasions been in discussions with senior police prosecutors and investigators where they said that the reason that they made sure that they complied with the law, and the expectations of the court and justice system, was simply because of the existance of robust defence and legal challenge.

Without that, they said that they would be likely to cut corners. This is not surprising to me, its basic human nature...

We don't want a police force that cuts corners and that happens without accountability. Firearms law is an area where accountabilty is not historically robust and given general public disassociation with our community that isn't likely to get better...

But its not a conspiracy, its just about self interest. The police are not interested in looking after your rights to enjoy your firearms even though they should be, it's a cost in resources and potentially a safety issue for them.

Accountability can only come from us... The law applies to us and it applies to them... they need to be made to comply with it and that will never change..

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

Quote:

---

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.:D

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."

Quote:

---

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.:D

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...

Quote:

---

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...:D

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....:D

Quote:

---

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... :D

Quote:

---

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... :D

---

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

Quote:

---

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. :D

lawyers could be worser....:)

Quote:

---

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/

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

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

---

@Sidney that makes 2 of us.

Quote:

---

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....

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

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,

Quote:

---

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!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Maca49

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

---

good job.... let us know

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.