Thread: Safe place to store ammo?

Originally Posted by Savage1

I suggest you spend a night with the Police and get a feel for what their job is like, I imagine it will change your tune.

Police need "good cause to suspect" in order to invoke a search of your vehicle regarding firearms, that reason could be that a vehicle of that description was used in an offence involving firearms in the area, within the past few hours. Do you think Police shouldn't have that power? How hard do you want to make their job?!

Good cause is totally unrelated to random spot inspections


I strongly disagree with the idea of police having the power to search my person, vehicle or home without cause/warrant, which is what random spot checks amounts to

I want to make the abuse of powers by police as hard as possible!

Originally Posted by Savage1

If police couldn't do spot inspections then what is to discourage the lazy from locking their firearms away?

The same reason we all lock our firearms away at the moment! Because most of us are honest people and we don't need you breathing down our neck to ensure we are! Please don't treat everyone as criminals with no evidence plz and thnx

Im always a bit uneasy about ammo locked inside the house. Imagine if you had a housefire. Wouldnt want fire brigade going in.... much easier to ket garage/shed burn than house.

Originally Posted by distant stalker

Im always a bit uneasy about ammo locked inside the house. Imagine if you had a housefire. Wouldnt want fire brigade going in.... much easier to ket garage/shed burn than house.

SAAMI - Sporting Ammunition and the Fire Fighter - YouTube


I wouldn't worry about it too much.

Mags out AND mags have to be empty.

Though if you had a belt fed "rifle"? now there's an interesting idea.



As my senior AO has the opinion that even stripper clips should be empty...

Originally Posted by gimp

SAAMI - Sporting Ammunition and the Fire Fighter - YouTube


I wouldn't worry about it too much.

The thing they seem to worry about is powder...

regards

Originally Posted by gimp

SAAMI - Sporting Ammunition and the Fire Fighter - YouTube


I wouldn't worry about it too much.

Good demo. Had always been curious about if a rifle round would build enough pressure when not held in a chamber.
R.e the powder. I believe its more the insurers that dont like powder in the house. I just burmt half a pound on the back lawn
Just sizzles. Less dangerous than more common accelerants like white spirits, meths etc

Originally Posted by gimp

Good cause is totally unrelated to random spot inspections


I strongly disagree with the idea of police having the power to search my person, vehicle or home without cause/warrant, which is what random spot checks amounts to

I want to make the abuse of powers by police as hard as possible!

So you think it's such a hassle to allow Police to check the security on firearms to ensure that they stored properly so that any old burglar can't just pick them up and leave?!

Oh it must be so hard allowing a 10 minute inspection, the things we have to endure to have a FAL.

Not all people would lock their firearms away, just because you might doesn't mean the rest of the firearms community would, same with WOF and Reg on vehicles, if Police couldn't do spot checks then how many more people would ignore it and inevitably drive around with bald tires etc, how many more people would drink drive rather than call a taxi? Shitloads, that's why Police need the ability in some circumstances to perform spot checks, if it offends you then I suggest you grow a thicker skin as there are far worse things out there than a random check.

Originally Posted by Savage1

So you think it's such a hassle to allow Police to check the security on firearms to ensure that they stored properly so that any old burglar can't just pick them up and leave?!

Oh it must be so hard allowing a 10 minute inspection, the things we have to endure to have a FAL.

Not all people would lock their firearms away, just because you might doesn't mean the rest of the firearms community would, same with WOF and Reg on vehicles, if Police couldn't do spot checks then how many more people would ignore it and inevitably drive around with bald tires etc, how many more people would drink drive rather than call a taxi? Shitloads, that's why Police need the ability in some circumstances to perform spot checks, if it offends you then I suggest you grow a thicker skin as there are far worse things out there than a random check.

A cop not understanding the idea of civil liberties, colour me unsurprised

Originally Posted by gimp

A cop not understanding the idea of civil liberties, colour me unsurprised

A niave and ignorant civilian unaware of what is needed to maintain a civil society, uncommon but hardly rare.

Civil society or police state?

Random spot checks with no probable cause amount to unreasonable breach of privacy and are way too open to abuse, sorry, please stop assuming everyone is a criminal. We don't have random spot checks now and there's not a massive plague of people leaving their guns lying around for burglars. Why not go check everyone in the countries house to ensure they're not in possession of a joint? Oh because of "due process". Firearms license holders have been vetted to be fit and proper to hold a license, we don't need you to check up on us to make sure we're obeying the rules.

Surely you can see the incompatibility between your view that the most law-abiding segment of the population needs constant monitoring to make sure they're not committing crimes, and the idea that the police need more powers? On the one hand you're assuming that everyone is a completely untrustworthy criminal and on the other that the police are incorruptible. It doesn't make sense, and displays a blatant disregard for civil rights which is ironically the reason I'm opposed to greater police powers

Originally Posted by gimp

Civil society or police state?

Random spot checks with no probable cause amount to unreasonable breach of privacy and are way too open to abuse, sorry, please stop assuming everyone is a criminal. We don't have random spot checks now and there's not a massive plague of people leaving their guns lying around for burglars. Why not go check everyone in the countries house to ensure they're not in possession of a joint? Oh because of "due process". Firearms license holders have been vetted to be fit and proper to hold a license, we don't need you to check up on us to make sure we're obeying the rules.

Surely you can see the incompatibility between your view that the most law-abiding segment of the population needs constant monitoring to make sure they're not committing crimes, and the idea that the police need more powers? On the one hand you're assuming that everyone is a completely untrustworthy criminal and on the other that the police are incorruptible. It doesn't make sense, and displays a blatant disregard for civil rights which is ironically the reason I'm opposed to greater police powers

This is NZ, NZ isn't a Police state, far from it. If you think otherwise then I suggest again that you spend a night on the beat.

Not all random spot checks amount to a breach of privacy, your broad sweeping statement is wrong.

Vetting isn't 100% reliable, this is shown when licences are revoked.

I don't assume that everyone is a criminal, spot checks are a necessary preventative measure in certain situations. Checking a person doesn't mean that they're being assumed to be a criminal.

Where did I say that everyone was a criminal? Or are you making an assumption? Where did I say that there was no corruption in the Police? Another stupid assumption? Where did I say the Police need more powers? Stop assuming that I've either said or think something to try and further your argument which is what you have done for your entire last paragraph, making it irrelevant.

Did you get hurt feelings because somebody told you what to do or pulled you over?

Originally Posted by Savage1

This is NZ, NZ isn't a Police state, far from it. If you think otherwise then I suggest again that you spend a night on the beat.

You're right, it's not, because police don't have that sort of power.

Not all random spot checks amount to a breach of privacy, your broad sweeping statement is wrong.

The power to conduct random spot checks enables unreasonable breach of privacy.

Vetting isn't 100% reliable, this is shown when licences are revoked.

And licenses are revoked for good cause, presumably, not "because you feel like it". So you can't search my house "because you feel like it"

I don't assume that everyone is a criminal, spot checks are a necessary preventative measure in certain situations. Checking a person doesn't mean that they're being assumed to be a criminal.

In those cases you'll have probable cause then.

Where did I say that everyone was a criminal? Or are you making an assumption? Where did I say that there was no corruption in the Police? Another stupid assumption? Where did I say the Police need more powers? Stop assuming that I've either said or think something to try and further your argument which is what you have done for your entire last paragraph, making it irrelevant.

You opposed my statement that "the police should not have power to make random spot checks without probable cause". Opposing that implies that you believe that the police should have that power, which literally means you do support increased police powers.

You haven't said that there is no corruption in the police but your statements strongly imply that you distrust all who aren't police, while strongly implying that you believe that the police should have increased (easily abused) powers

Did you get hurt feelings because somebody told you what to do or pulled you over?

No,I just firmly believe in civil rights, nice little ad hominem though

Random checks don't open up opportunity for breaches of privacy, read up on the legislation before making such statements. They are quite closely controlled.

I never said that Police could search your house because they feel like it.

I opposed your statement because you said Police shouldn't have the power to do spot checks, I know what would happen with the number of drink drivers, unsafe vehicles etc. That no way implies that I endorse increased Police powers.

My statements don't imply anything, you are making assumptions, I think Police powers are just about bang on.

I believe in civil rights, funnily enough it's a Police officers job to protect them. You'll find a criminal will be far more willing to breach your civil rights and without Police powers then what's to stop them.

I dont have an issue with random checks. I would rather them than the two times a week minimum road blocks for "random" warrant checks
I got stopped three times out kf fiur drives in two days... that sort of excessive focus in a small area does more to bother me than random firearm checks. It got to the point inwas actually starting to.calculate loss of income due to time spent in lines at check points.