Thread: Should Have Been More Than a Warning

Originally Posted by 223nut

technically illegal... if not being constantly supervised

If its alarmed and you're close enough to hear the alarm and get there within a matter of seconds (quite likely in that situation) I think you could make a pretty good argument that it is supervised even if you're not in direct sight of it.

If I'm travelling longer distance with guns in the car I have them bolts out and locked to a luggage tie-down loop or something with an alarmed cable lock (as well as being out of sight), and obviously lock the car if I leave it to go to the dunny or buy food etc. If anything did happen at least I could show that I'd taken reasonable steps to secure them.

For anyone interested, there is a case before the Ashburton District Court concerning stopping for a piss while carrying firearms in a vehicle. Makes for interesting reading.

Originally Posted by Pengy

My neighbour got his `safe` signed off in his house bus, which is very much still driveable, despite it being his static home.
AO didn't even go an look at it

Goes to show the differences in interpretations by arms officer round the country...

Originally Posted by Beavis

For anyone interested, there is a case before the Ashburton District Court concerning stopping for a piss while carrying firearms in a vehicle. Makes for interesting reading.

Any link? Would be very interested to see how it goes...

https://www.whaleoil.co.nz/2017/06/h...coln-went-pee/

Alot of reading @Shahin

The whole basis of the case I just linked, was really was the defendant committing an offence while trying to comply with the law as written.

I've read the story twice and still don't understand what all the fuss is about.
1. The vehicle was leaving the scene, therefore it was mobile - shotgun not then required to be secure.
2. The driver was breath tested for excess alcohol but returned a negative result.
3. There was some form of bong/pipe contraption which was possibly used (at some point in time) to smoke cannabis - yawn

What's the actual problem here?
FFS!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

He took the SL8 from his car, slung it over his shoulder and – keeping it as discreet and unobtrusive as possible – went into the toilet, came out, put the SL8 back in his car and proceeded on his way.

He was seen by a woman in Timaru, where he got fuel, and one in Ashburton, who said they were concerned that someone should be carrying a rifle in the street and both phoned the police.

Why on earth would you not put it in a case of some kind? Even if the law doesn't say you have to, you would be pretty stupid not to keep it covered when out in public. Especially at a service station, public toilets or places like that.

Unless of course, you were looking to make some kind of statement and draw attention to yourself.

Originally Posted by Mauser308

You answered your own question, the law doesn't require it.

In any event, one would expect if people are going to take some form of action over an issue they would at least make sure they were on sure legal footing. Especially if they are paid to do it...

I'm not sure the two people, in two different towns, who rang the cops were getting paid for it.

Yeah, nah. I think I'll keep using a bag to carry my guns. Just to save this kind of totally predictable result.

Originally Posted by systolic

I'm not sure the two people, in two different towns, who rang the cops were getting paid for it.

Yeah, nah. I think I'll keep using a bag to carry my guns. Just to save this kind of totally predictable result.

Good idea - because there is no chance your personality will keep you out of trouble....

Lee makes a fair point, however the main point of the Lincoln case is how it was all handled after the police were called

Originally Posted by Tommy

Lee makes a fair point, however the main point of the Lincoln case is how it was all handled after the police were called

A mad, desperate, half arsed attempt to convict someone with something. And it looks like it will backfire in spectacular fashion.

Originally Posted by systolic

I'm not sure the two people, in two different towns, who rang the cops were getting paid for it.

Yeah, nah. I think I'll keep using a bag to carry my guns. Just to save this kind of totally predictable result.

Whatever Mr Lincolns actions were, they were not illegal... however the police response was. If you think that unlawful police response is predictable and expected, then we are further down that track than we want to be....

This was just a bunch of over reactive cowboys, who dug themselves a hole and then thought the best solution was to keep digging. Thats not just incompetance thats malicious, methinks that the judge might be of similar inclination....

Richard Lincoln took a piss
He owns a SL8, he'll never miss
Soccer Sally saw the shlong
Chris Cahill prosecuted him for being too long

sounds like Justice Joanna Maze is about to deliver the choke barrel to Justice Jillian Mallons first copper arse buster .GUNDOC-u there - dont some of these buggers understand,and are you gonna run rings around thisexpert police armourer as well??
WTF-boys in blue are mental health experts too -after their claims im waiting for mental health professionals evidence to validate their concerns-OOOOOOOPPPPPPPSSSSSS gone walkabout have they??????