Thread: New Updated Arms Code 2017

Originally Posted by Sidney

sort of self defeating GM.... come on now...

a) its not illegal, wrongful or subversive - you not liking it doesn't meet that standard

b) to be a group of conspirators a) has to be met

c) its not an illegal action

d) does not involve people...

a) Subversive - changing that status of A-Cat, particularly when it is already defined'ish/accepted - Tick

b) More than one person - hard to have a meeting with just yourself - Tick

c) Illegal - doesn't have to be by definition - Tick

d) Does not involve people - not sure what you're on about here, it all involves people - Tick

Any closed session of parliament is conspiring to do something because it is secret.

Originally Posted by Dan88

Hmmm I'm sure I had a don't feed the troll's sign around here somewhere ��

Sent from my SM-G389F using Tapatalk

I ate it whilst sitting under my bridge.

Originally Posted by Sidney

the issue is clearly whether or not it is lawful for the police to formulate policy about their areas of responsiblity and plainly it is.

Is it lawful for them to formulate policy that contradicts or is beyond the limits of the law?

con·spir·a·cy (kən-spîr′ə-sē)
n. pl. con·spir·a·cies
1. An agreement to perform together an illegal, wrongful, or subversive act.
2. A group of conspirators.
3. Law An agreement between two or more persons to commit a crime or accomplish a legal purpose through illegal action.
4. A joining or acting together, as if by sinister design: a conspiracy of wind and tide that devastated coastal areas.

a) Subversive - changing that status of A-Cat, particularly when it is already defined'ish/accepted - Tick

b) More than one person - hard to have a meeting with just yourself - Tick

c) Illegal - doesn't have to be by definition - Tick

d) Does not involve people - not sure what you're on about here, it all involves people - Tick

Any closed session of parliament is conspiring to do something because it is secret.

Sorry got letters instead of numbers... might have caused the lack of clarity a-d = 1-4.....

a) Defined where...?? Just in Statute? The law can be challenged at any stage any time as part of recognised process, one of the basic principles of a free society... how is that subversion? The law is not settled until the court rules. If the police now attempted to apply what they have been told was unlawful by the court - then it could become subversion, but that hasn't happened has it. And the code and any incompetant AO hasn't been established as being that...
NOTE: to subvert is a deliberate policy of breaching the law..

b)Unless illegality is intended, no conspiriters exist... having private meetings does not make people conspiriters.. Point 1 has to be true before this can apply

c)Yes it does, you're own definition requires it..

d)Thats a metaphoric example not involving people. It is not possible for the winds and tide to make agreements..

by the way... show me where secrecy is a requirement?

Originally Posted by Sidney

Sorry got letters instead of numbers... might have caused the lack of clarity a-d = 1-4.....

a) Defined where...?? Just in Statute? The law can be challenged at any stage any time as part of recognised process, one of the basic principles of a free society... how is that subversion? The law is not settled until the court rules. If the police now attempted to apply what they have been told was unlawful by the court - then it could become subversion, but that hasn't happened has it. And the code and any incompetant AO hasn't been established as being that...
NOTE: to subvert is a deliberate policy of breaching the law..

b)Unless illegality is intended, no conspiriters exist... having private meetings does not make people conspiriters.. Point 1 has to be true before this can apply

c)Yes it does, you're own definition requires it..

d)Thats a metaphoric example not involving people. It is not possible for the winds and tide to make agreements..

by the way... show me where secrecy is a requirement?

Completely wrong. The word has been picked up and used by the legal system for a very narrow usage. Again that is not what is being used here. Conspiring is simply to have a secret meeting to formulate a plan to disadvantage another party. IT DOES NOT NEED TO BE ILLEGAL!

Originally Posted by GravelBen

Is it lawful for them to formulate policy that contradicts or is beyond the limits of the law?

when the law is established, then it would be unlawful to contradict the law. To go beyond the limits of the established law may not break the law, but the obligation of the state is to comply with the law in general. Where this becomes debateable is where the agency concerned can claim consistency with existing legislative intent...

For example... the police have a policy of inspection of security measure before they will issue a new FAL. Now give you cannot own a firearm before you have a licience, then clearly you cannot possess one either. The legislation requires securtiy only for firearms that you are in possession of.

Why then do the police insist on inspecting security that you are not legally obliged to have before that issue a FAL... they are acting outside of their legal authority afterall..

The answer of course is expediancy, education of a new FAL person and its a practical response... no court is going to spank them for that..

Originally Posted by gadgetman

Completely wrong. The word has been picked up and used by the legal system for a very narrow usage. Again that is not what is being used here. Conspiring is simply to have a secret meeting to formulate a plan to disadvantage another party. IT DOES NOT NEED TO BE ILLEGAL!

Ah come on Gadget..

You know that just saying its wrong isn't actually an argument... and your own definition posted above says exactly that...

Now at some point, being an engineer must give you cause to pause and examine where your expertise really lies... I'm quite happy to give credit where its due..

And by the way... show me where secrecy is a requirement...

Also legal definition of words are not different to the common meanings, they are just are contextualised or more specific and defined to clarify what is intended for the application that they are being used in. So when the legal meaning as defined says that "conspiracy" = an agreement between two or more people, with a formed intent to commit a crime, who act in a way that shows more that mere preparation has taken place....

then that is exactly true in the general usage as well.... an agreement to do something wrong or harmful or illegal, and some sort of act/s that shows that to be true is is the general application...

and guess what, you can't have your cake and eat it too..... people used "conspiracy" to imply illegality, and they did that here. You can't do that and then say thats not what it means... what would be the point if not to claim that?

Pretty sure they get legal advice on every issue going to court.. I know that they had advice before they followed through on the pistol grips case.... believe me they prefer not to follow through if they know that they are going to get spanked. They were clearly hoping the result was going to be the other way around.
Lawyers argue cases every day for their clients who are hoping to change the legal interpretations of some statute and I guess that is all that is happening here.

The attitude of the police has definitely changed towards firearms ownership, my argument is that its just not a conspiracy... it simply is what it is. I think that that is their policy to minimise private ownership over the long term and making it harder for us will be the means by which that will be achieved. This will come in the forms of support for further legislative restriction and in the form of policy that pushes legal boundaries. They are no longer our friends in my view.

From what I can see the motivations are coming from different directions, health and safety of staff is likely to be one, budgetary costs another, and personally I think that the ideology within the department has changed. There is also their own failings in terms of burglary prevention and clearance rate they would like to distract attention away from. They have certainly lost any idea of their responsibility to protect our rights under the law...

So the net result is that the attitude towards firearms will likely continue to become more negative. But I would say it is an agenda, and likely to be a policy... every little policy writer and bureaucrat spends their time fixing perceived problems and we have developed a culture of blame rather than responsibility...

Oh joy.......... I'm depressing myself

Originally Posted by Sidney

Ah come on Gadget..

You know that just saying its wrong isn't actually an argument... and your own definition posted above says exactly that...

Now at some point, being an engineer must give you cause to pause and examine where your expertise really lies... I'm quite happy to give credit where its due..

And by the way... show me where secrecy is a requirement...

Also legal definition of words are not different to the common meanings, they are just are contextualised or more specific and defined to clarify what is intended for the application that they are being used in. So when the legal meaning as defined says that "conspiracy" = an agreement between two or more people, with a formed intent to commit a crime, who act in a way that shows more that mere preparation has taken place....

then that is exactly true in the general usage as well.... an agreement to do something wrong or harmful or illegal, and some sort of act/s that shows that to be true is is the general application...

and guess what, you can't have your cake and eat it too..... people used "conspiracy" to imply illegality, and they did that here. You can't do that and then say thats not what it means... what would be the point if not to claim that?

Now I think you have just gazumpt yourself. Conspiracy you have partly got right. But the legal bit uses it as part of a phrase. "Conspiracy to do something illegal." Now that is often defined in cases where it is not desirable for the actual crime to be committed. The classic being the law makers putting into force a law to make it illegal to plan to overthrow the legislature by force. The basic premise of our legal system being that you cannot be prosecuted for a crime you have not yet committed, so we have in a few instances where it is a crime to plan to do so. Now when you take the word out of your legal phrase and take a look at the word "conspiracy", it is just the common usage of the word which, in general, means a meeting in secret (or closed group) to plan.

Originally Posted by Sidney

Pretty sure they get legal advice on every issue going to court.. I know that they had advice before they followed through on the pistol grips case.... believe me they prefer not to follow through if they know that they are going to get spanked. They were clearly hoping the result was going to be the other way around.
Lawyers argue cases every day for their clients who are hoping to change the legal interpretations of some statute and I guess that is all that is happening here.

The attitude of the police has definitely changed towards firearms ownership, my argument is that its just not a conspiracy... it simply is what it is. I think that that is their policy to minimise private ownership over the long term and making it harder for us will be the means by which that will be achieved. This will come in the forms of support for further legislative restriction and in the form of policy that pushes legal boundaries. They are no longer our friends in my view.

From what I can see the motivations are coming from different directions, health and safety of staff is likely to be one, budgetary costs another, and personally I think that the ideology within the department has changed. There is also their own failings in terms of burglary prevention and clearance rate they would like to distract attention away from. They have certainly lost any idea of their responsibility to protect our rights under the law...

So the net result is that the attitude towards firearms will likely continue to become more negative. But I would say it is an agenda, and likely to be a policy... every little policy writer and bureaucrat spends their time fixing perceived problems and we have developed a culture of blame rather than responsibility...

Oh joy.......... I'm depressing myself

I agree. They sure have signalled that one. It is almost to the point where their view is so skewed that it would be time for the administrative task of firearms licensing to be removed from them.

Now I think you have just gazumpt yourself. Conspiracy you have partly got right. But the legal bit uses it as part of a phrase. "Conspiracy to do something illegal." Now that is often defined in cases where it is not desirable for the actual crime to be committed. The classic being the law makers putting into force a law to make it illegal to plan to overthrow the legislature by force. The basic premise of our legal system being that you cannot be prosecuted for a crime you have not yet committed, so we have in a few instances where it is a crime to plan to do so. Now when you take the word out of your legal phrase and take a look at the word "conspiracy", it is just the common usage of the word which, in general, means a meeting in secret (or closed group) to plan.

and yet that is a definition you have not put up.. you have paraphrased it several times I have not yet seem a formalised quote from some source.... in "general usage" doesn't count..

the point being however this is a discussion about legislation, obligation under the law, policy decisions made by agencies charged with enforcing the law..

there is no point in trying to introduce "general usage" into a discussion that is evaluating the behaviour of such an agency in that context.. it is entirely consistant to expect the legal meaning to be used in that way for that reason...

now if you want to have a discussion about the weather being out to get you, and its just a conspiracy that everytime you leave the house it rains on you.... then contextually that would be appropriate...

but that wasn't the implication in this discussion was it??

I agree. They sure have signalled that one. It is almost to the point where their view is so skewed that it would be time for the administrative task of firearms licensing to be removed from them.

I am wondering whether that might be the angle?

Originally Posted by Sidney

and yet that is a definition you have not put up.. you have paraphrased it several times I have not yet seem a formalised quote from some source.... in "general usage" doesn't count..

the point being however this is a discussion about legislation, obligation under the law, policy decisions made by agencies charged with enforcing the law..

there is no point in trying to introduce "general usage" into a discussion that is evaluating the behaviour of such an agency in that context.. it is entirely consistant to expect the legal meaning to be used in that way for that reason...

now if you want to have a discussion about the weather being out to get you, and its just a conspiracy that everytime you leave the house it rains on you.... then contextually that would be appropriate...

but that wasn't the implication in this discussion was it??

The legal usage is made a legal usage by its use in a phrase (context), and I gave you a usage with coaches which is entirely correct for one that is not a crime. It does not have to be a plan for anything illegal by every dictionary definition I've seen. It is simply planning in secrecy (to at least some degree) so the word is quite simply a correct term to be used for PNHQ formulating a plan. Plain and simple. As I've stated many, many, many times, it is not a crime to conspire, but it is a crime to conspire to commit some crimes.

Originally Posted by Sidney

I am wondering whether that might be the angle?

Yes. The old, "Do a job well and everyone will come to you to do it. Do it badly and people will go elsewhere."

context is not just the phraseology used.... it is also the situation that it is being applied to..... you don't get out of it that easily...

the implication was obvious... and so was the intention..