Thread: Overall length Saga continues

https://kiwigunblog.wordpress.com/20...-policy-again/

Hi Folks just the messenger getting word out.

I feel for the Average cops out there with this going on.

Oh FFS

When will these blue fuckwits ever stop?

its not the average cop, they are more concerned about sawn off shotguns and rifles than e-cat's. this is purely a few rotten apples at the top who are basically u.n puppets

Sent to styart nash:
Mr Nash,
I write to you regarding yet more unlawful actions by the NZ police regarding the enforcement of the NZ arms act. Specifically, how please have changed their interpretation of the law regarding how the length of an ‘E’ Endorsement firearm (Military style semi-automatic) is measured before falling below the set length that it then becomes classed as a pistol (762mm) and thus requiring a ‘B’ Endorsement. This is a change in police ‘policy’ that police are enforcing. It is not consistent with how the act reads. NZ police are here to enforce NZ legislation, not police policy. By enforcing policy and not legislation and then changing said policy, NZ police are in effect changing the legislation in regards to those with whom the legislation impacts (E endorsed firearms license holders). This is beyond their powers and is unlawful. As police minister, it is your responsibility to ensure that NZ police are not exceeding their powers and are enforcing legislation, not policy. Failure to do so is implicitly condoning NZ police actions of unlawfully enforcing policy rather than legislation. This is quite an alarming concept. If police are permitted to enforce their policy, who dictates when that policy changes? What policies are NZ police allowed to enforce instead of legislation? Where does it stop – road rules? financial legislation? Assault? Who makes the decision on where the boundary is for policy enforcement instead of legislation? It is an abuse of police powers.

Please note that I will be forwarding a copy of this email, and your response (or lack thereof) to several NZ media outlets.
In a few weeks the Police will appear in court to defend their policy of how to measure an MSSA rifle to ensure that the legal minimum length is met.
Here is the history:
1. Police released a policy – in writing – stating that ta rifle with a folding stock rifle would be measured in the open position.
2. Police changed this policy. Telling nobody. No campaign in the gun magazines or social media – nothing. When the Kiwi Gun Blog asked if the rumours of the change were true – the Police would not answer. We had to apply under the Official Information Act and wait a month to discover the truth.
3. We campaigned for the Police to at least include the length of any permanently affixed muzzle device. They agreed. Confirming at a Pistol Club meeting that if a tool was required for removal then it would be included in overall length.
4. The Kiwi Gun Blog then heard rumours of another reversal of policy. We asked Police if this was true. They would not say. So we again asked under the Official Information Act and after a month the response received was that police required an extension of time to answer the question because it necessitates consultations such that a proper response cannot be made within the original time limit

This response is democratically offensive. NZ police are enforcing a policy, not legislation, and are refusing to make the specifics of this policy public. This prevents firearms license holders from being charged by NZ police unlawfully enforcing policy over legislation. This is a gross abuse of police powers.

Further information can be found at the following link:
https://kiwigunblog.wordpress.com/20...-policy-again/


Do you condone these police actions?
Are you intending to stop these police actions?
Are you aware of the upcoming court case to challenge these unlawful police actions?

I await your response,

Originally Posted by Danger Mouse

Sent to styart nash:
Mr Nash,
I write to you regarding yet more unlawful actions by the NZ police regarding the enforcement of the NZ arms act. Specifically, how please have changed their interpretation of the law regarding how the length of an ‘E’ Endorsement firearm (Military style semi-automatic) is measured before falling below the set length that it then becomes classed as a pistol (762mm) and thus requiring a ‘B’ Endorsement. This is a change in police ‘policy’ that police are enforcing. It is not consistent with how the act reads. NZ police are here to enforce NZ legislation, not police policy. By enforcing policy and not legislation and then changing said policy, NZ police are in effect changing the legislation in regards to those with whom the legislation impacts (E endorsed firearms license holders). This is beyond their powers and is unlawful. As police minister, it is your responsibility to ensure that NZ police are not exceeding their powers and are enforcing legislation, not policy. Failure to do so is implicitly condoning NZ police actions of unlawfully enforcing policy rather than legislation. This is quite an alarming concept. If police are permitted to enforce their policy, who dictates when that policy changes? What policies are NZ police allowed to enforce instead of legislation? Where does it stop – road rules? financial legislation? Assault? Who makes the decision on where the boundary is for policy enforcement instead of legislation? It is an abuse of police powers.

Please note that I will be forwarding a copy of this email, and your response (or lack thereof) to several NZ media outlets.
In a few weeks the Police will appear in court to defend their policy of how to measure an MSSA rifle to ensure that the legal minimum length is met.
Here is the history:
1. Police released a policy – in writing – stating that ta rifle with a folding stock rifle would be measured in the open position.
2. Police changed this policy. Telling nobody. No campaign in the gun magazines or social media – nothing. When the Kiwi Gun Blog asked if the rumours of the change were true – the Police would not answer. We had to apply under the Official Information Act and wait a month to discover the truth.
3. We campaigned for the Police to at least include the length of any permanently affixed muzzle device. They agreed. Confirming at a Pistol Club meeting that if a tool was required for removal then it would be included in overall length.
4. The Kiwi Gun Blog then heard rumours of another reversal of policy. We asked Police if this was true. They would not say. So we again asked under the Official Information Act and after a month the response received was that police required an extension of time to answer the question because it necessitates consultations such that a proper response cannot be made within the original time limit

This response is democratically offensive. NZ police are enforcing a policy, not legislation, and are refusing to make the specifics of this policy public. This prevents firearms license holders from being charged by NZ police unlawfully enforcing policy over legislation. This is a gross abuse of police powers.

Further information can be found at the following link:
https://kiwigunblog.wordpress.com/20...-policy-again/


Do you condone these police actions?
Are you intending to stop these police actions?
Are you aware of the upcoming court case to challenge these unlawful police actions?

I await your response,

Pretty sure it's a waste of time whining to the Minister. He can actually do fuck all about how the police work. Which is a good thing.

Google 'constabulary independence'.

Here's a small outline from Wikipedia:

While the New Zealand Police is a government department with a minister responsible for it, the Commissioner and sworn members swear allegiance directly to the Sovereign and, by convention, have constabulary independence from the government of the day.

Originally Posted by systolic

Pretty sure it's a waste of time whining to the Minister. He can actually do fuck all about how the police work. Which is a good thing.

Google 'constabulary independence'.

Here's a small outline from Wikipedia:

While the New Zealand Police is a government department with a minister responsible for it, the Commissioner and sworn members swear allegiance directly to the Sovereign and, by convention, have constabulary independence from the government of the day.

So the NZ police have a coup ? and are not answerable to the Govt?

Originally Posted by veitnamcam

So the NZ police have a coup ? and are not answerable to the Govt?

I don't think the police could stage a coup in this country, even if they wanted to.

What it means is that the the Minister, or anyone else in Government, can't tell the cops to say, stop a criminal investigation into someone just because they are a big donor to the political party making up the Government of the day.

Or to lock up people who belong to a political party other than the one in power. Or because of their religion. Or skin colour.

This is all basic secondary school social studies stuff. Unless you went to an 'alternative' school or studied for NCEA credits in weaving and listening to music.

Originally Posted by veitnamcam

So the NZ police have a coup ? and are not answerable to the Govt?

Seems like it. They can claim that the minister is interfering with internal police matters or something a long those lines.

Sent from my TA-1024 using Tapatalk

If the police are answerable to the Crown directly and not the the government as Systolic claims, then I guess complaints about unlawful police policies and activities should be addressed to the Governor General as the Crown's representative (remember the Governor General legally has the power to dissolve parliament too if necessary).

Unfortunately some within the police bureaucracy seem to believe its their job to make up laws to suit themselves instead of enforcing the laws they are subject to.

Originally Posted by systolic

What it means is that the the Minister, or anyone else in Government, can't tell the cops to say, stop a criminal investigation into someone just because they are a big donor to the political party making up the Government of the day.

That may be so, but you seem to underestimate the power of ministers a bit.

Remember last year when the police had a go with their wishlist of changes to the arms act ? Pressure from the firearms community on the then minister (Paula Bennet) has some interesting consequences. The phrase "torn a new arsehole" comes to mind if you think about what happened to some folks at police HQ.

Originally Posted by systolic

Pretty sure it's a waste of time whining to the Minister. He can actually do fuck all about how the police work. Which is a good thing.

Google 'constabulary independence'.

Here's a small outline from Wikipedia:

While the New Zealand Police is a government department with a minister responsible for it, the Commissioner and sworn members swear allegiance directly to the Sovereign and, by convention, have constabulary independence from the government of the day.

I spouse I could moan on here, not achieving anything instead.

Or I could keep contacting mps, making ipca complaints and contributing to legal funds to put pressure on for change.

How many people here are actually doing anything?

Originally Posted by Danger Mouse

How many people here are actually doing anything?

some of use are putting real time and $ into it, unfortunaly most just bitch- some even spend more time bitching than it would actully take for them to engage

Originally Posted by systolic

I don't think the police could stage a coup in this country, even if they wanted to.

What it means is that the the Minister, or anyone else in Government, can't tell the cops to say, stop a criminal investigation into someone just because they are a big donor to the political party making up the Government of the day.

Or to lock up people who belong to a political party other than the one in power. Or because of their religion. Or skin colour.

This is all basic secondary school social studies stuff. Unless you went to an 'alternative' school or studied for NCEA credits in weaving and listening to music.

In theory, but it is not entirely clean cut. Remember Heather the Duper Allen getting off the hook? They are answerable to the government, paid by the government, ...

Refusing to measure the gun length without first detaching parts which require a tool to be attached/detached does not hold water.

You might equally arbitrarily unscrew and remove the entire stock off any hunting rifle. If it can be fired in that state, then measure its length from the back of the bolt to the end of the rifling!

Or consider Lee-Enfield two piece stocks. Is someone going to get out a really big screwdriver and land someone in trouble? After all, those CAN be fired without butt stock attached!



The police policy do not appear to act in good faith - more like, "Now, let's see, how much hassle can one cause citing exisiting legislation..." It's got plausible deniability -- just requires at least one member of NZ Police to act stubbornly stupid in court. But such sadly also reflects poorly on intelligent members of the police force.

As for folding stocks, the initial undertaking to measure guns with stock extended was ill-advised, but I of course agree it would have been useful for police to stick to one policy. But it seems safe and reasonable in terms of applying the law to measure a gun in its shortest configuration if it can be extended/shortened without use of a tool. Harping on otherwise may cause some loss of credibility.

The law has not been changed so the legal situation remains unchanged. Police 'policy' has no legal clout if it differs (as it frequently does) from the law. If the Police come and take your firearm then the definition of a pistol is based totally on the length of it at the time they seize it. If they remove items that are normally meant to be there before they measure it (such as a butt stock, suppressor, or muzzle brake) then it is them who made the 'pistol', not you. The only exception to that rule is folding stocks. If the firearm is able to be held and fired with the stock folded and is below 762mm, then it is legally a 'pistol'. Therefore, firearms with folding stocks must be measured with the stock in the folded position (ie: the shortest useable length).