Thread: Police seize 39 guns in raid at house in rural south Auckland

Police seize 39 guns in raid at house in rural south Auckland - NZ Herald

A rural Auckland family sheltered "in lockdown" in a bathroom when police with guns began to mass outside their home.

The police say they went to the property near Pukekohe about 9am on Sunday to serve a protection order on a man at the house and to seize numerous firearms.

The collection includes military-style weapons and collectible items such as muskets.

The man, who is in his 50s and whom the Herald cannot name for legal reasons, said no protection order was served and he now plans to file a complaint with the Independent Police Conduct Authority.

He believes the police acted unlawfully by entering his property when its gate was locked.

He told the Herald: "I have threatened nobody. I'm a peaceful man."

He lives at the house with his wife and children.

A former police officer, he listed the police resources deployed against him, which he believed were excessive: two trucks of special tactics group officers, five police cars, six uniformed police officers "surrounding the house" who were armed with pistols and wearing vests - "and a guy with a sledgehammer".

He said police were at his house for more than four hours.

Inspector Dave Glossop, the area commander for Counties Manukau south, said the man refused to admit the police.

"Based on all the information available to police - including the presence of a large number of firearms at the address - the Armed Offenders Squad was consulted with and deployed to assist in a support role along with the police negotiation team.

"Under section 18 of the Search and Surveillance Act, police gained peaceful entry to the address.

"More than 30 firearms were uplifted, and the protection order was served."

The act permits entry, search for and seizure of firearms without a warrant for reasons including the existence of a protection order against the person or there being grounds to make an application for one.

A senior police officer negotiated with the man by text message.

In one message, the officer said: "This is getting close to me forcing entry into the house. I don't want to do that. Please come to the door."

The man said his family were terrified by the experience.

"My daughters were crying, my wife was crying."

The mother said her daughter was in tears.

"She was worrying they were going to hurt the dog."

The man said: "We were in lockdown in the bathroom. My mate rang to say, 'It's getting serious, they're putting bullet-proof vests on, there's the Armed Offenders Squad and sledge hammers'.

"I thought, 'I don't need to put my family through this'."

The man, speaking to his friend by phone, asked his friend to pass the phone to a police officer, who then spoke with the man.

The man cooperated with the police and arranged for a neighbour to help the police get his guns.

The man said the police took 39 guns, including military-style rifles, pistols and collectible items such as muskets. They were all secured in two safes.

moral of the story . . . if you have guns do not upset anyone, anytime, anywhere . . . or the cops are coming

R.

there seems to be some obvious facts missing from story ? The headlines & actions make it sound like he was doing something illegally ? did he have FAL ? appropriate category ? suitable storage/security ? feels a OTT to me

It says he is a former police officer. Wonder what he would be saying if about the occupant he was wanting to gain access when he was still on the force . . . .
Obviously lots more to the story that we aren't going to hear.

Originally Posted by chainsaw

there seems to be some obvious facts missing from story ? The headlines & actions make it sound like he was doing something illegally ? did he have FAL ? appropriate category ? suitable storage/security ? feels a OTT to me

Sounds a bit suspect too on the outside with out knowing the facts looks like a total over reaction.

Originally Posted by chainsaw

there seems to be some obvious facts missing from story ? The headlines & actions make it sound like he was doing something illegally ? did he have FAL ? appropriate category ? suitable storage/security ? feels a OTT to me

If you read the second line of what is posted, it says the police went there to serve a protection order and seize his guns.

If you have a protection order, you can't have guns. Simple.

When you are driving and see blue and reds you stop! when a cop comes to your door and knock's you open it. ITs not that hard for fuckwits like this guy to know this been a ex cop! his mate text him to say they are putting on vest, what did he think working up his family was going to save his sorry arse, if i hide in here they might leave

Where do we sign up to contribute to his defence? He needs to take them on?

It will all come out in court. His refusal to give cops permission to enter was important the way I understand it. Cooperation under protest is the order of the day, because if you or your partner invite them in you cannot cry out "illegal entry/search" later in court.

Doesn't say who the protection order was for... Lots missing and could make for a landmark court case

Originally Posted by systolic

If you read the second line of what is posted, it says the police went there to serve a protection order and seize his guns.

And the 6th line quotes him as saying no protection order was served...

Certainly seems that there is more to the story than what has been reported.

Well one side is lying.

Yeah but he had 39 firearms, who needs that many.
That's sensational headline stuff right there...

Originally Posted by oraki

Yeah but he had 39 firearms, who needs that many.
That's sensational headline stuff right there...

"The man said the police took 39 guns, including military-style rifles, pistols and collectible items such as muskets. They were all secured in two safes."

Military style muskets I bet. Freaking gun nut...

Bloody terrorist muskets terrorising everyone terribly.