Thread: Response to the Law and Order Select committee

Originally Posted by PaulNZ

I believe we should acknowledge steps in the right direction as much as we oppose steps in the wrong direction. Surely you agree that the action of the Police Minister in this instance could have worked out a lot worse for the shooting public? Of course it doesn't mean that everyone should relax thinking that commonsense has prevailed. But if the only response to a decision which actually worked reasonably in our favor is more complaints, then from a politicians viewpoint we become the group that "They're never going to be happy regardless of what we do, so why should we cost ourselves votes from the other end of the political spectrum trying? Screw them."

I for one am going to email Paula Bennett my thanks and support, along with the hope that the rights of law-abiding firearms owners will be upheld going forward.

You just don't get it do you? The minister is not upholding the rights of law-abiding firearms owners.

There will be a new arms amendment which will include the illegal practices that police have previously carried out as policy.

There will be no addressing problems in the current act. No repeal of the reverse onus conditions in the current act.

Police will continue their current policy of inflicting the Thorp report upon licence holders through bully tactics. What works so well for them will not change.

Police will have additional tools to threaten and intimidate licence holders who insist that they follow the law.

Nothing in the amended act will stop criminals being criminals.

What is needed is for a repeal of the whole act. This will allow police to stop focusing on control of sporting equipment, and get back to dealing with violent assault, murder, theft and burglary, which are all amply provided for under the crimes act.