Thread: Should Have Been More Than a Warning

No sympathy for the bong.

The thing about not leaving firearms in vehicles, it is hard to adhere to completely. We're legally meant to lug the gun with us when we stop for some fish and chips on the way home. Not good public relations, though it helps having a gun case, or at least a chamber flag if you insist on keeping the law.

Cops I've raised this with see my point but (as one would rightly expect them to) come back to the fact that the law... is the law.

Obviously police discretion is required big time, so "passing the attitude test" is important. Which brings us back to the matter of that bong...

Originally Posted by Cordite

No sympathy for the bong.

The thing about not leaving firearms in vehicles, it is hard to adhere to completely. We're legally meant to lug the gun with us when we stop for some fish and chips on the way home. Not good public relations, though it helps having a gun case, or at least a chamber flag if you insist on keeping the law.

Cops I've raised this with see my point but (as one would rightly expect them to) come back to the fact that the law... is the law.

Obviously police discretion is required big time, so "passing the attitude test" is important. Which brings us back to the matter of that bong...

Yeah smoking weed 100% means you have an attitude problem. sigh

Originally Posted by Jexla

Yeah smoking weed 100% means you have an attitude problem. sigh

Well Naaaa. It is still currently illegal. As such, if you are prepared to break the law in this manner, then will you comply with other laws that are of similar importance in your mind? That then becomes a slippery slope towards no longer being a fit and proper person.

Now before anyone says it is silly for weed to be illegal or give the many reasons as to why weed should not be illegal, I have no problem with weed itself, and nothing against those who use it. (For whatever reason). But if you feel that because it is a "silly" law for it to be illegal and decide that it is actually OK to smoke weed, bear in mind that this is still breaking the law. What if someone decided another law was silly? Does that mean we get to decide which laws to obey and where do we draw the line? At the end of it all there is one line. Legal / Illegal and that line makes a large part of the decisions that are used to determine "fit and proper". One side has a record, and one does not.

In this particular case, there was no way of determining whether any law had been broken, silly or not. Thus no further action other than a warning to advise that keeping out of these situations may be a better course of action in the future.....

Originally Posted by Jexla

Yeah smoking weed 100% means you have an attitude problem. sigh

If you inhale, yes. (-:

Seriously though, if you have a cannabis habit you either cultivate it or you associate with criminal elements to obtain it. Murky waters.

Not that I'd start a persecution, but since a FAL is a privilege not a right in NZ you must be a clean and safe pair of hands.

That said, I got a speeding ticket the other day... which although not a criminal offense is still an offense. I believe some jurisdictions do not artificially distinguish between "criminal" offenses and "traffic" offenses. Oh no, they're surely coming now for my guns! )-:>

Originally Posted by Cordite

No sympathy for the bong.

The thing about not leaving firearms in vehicles, it is hard to adhere to completely. We're legally meant to lug the gun with us when we stop for some fish and chips on the way home. Not good public relations, though it helps having a gun case, or at least a chamber flag if you insist on keeping the law.

Cops I've raised this with see my point but (as one would rightly expect them to) come back to the fact that the law... is the law.

Obviously police discretion is required big time, so "passing the attitude test" is important. Which brings us back to the matter of that bong...

Legally meant to lug it with you?

Not being allowed to leave a gun unattended is not the same as legally meant to lug it with you.

If you were that worried about not breaking the law, why wouldn't you take the gun home and lock it away before getting fish and chips?

Only a fucking idiot would think they should take their gun with them shopping, rather than take it home first and lock it away.

Originally Posted by GravelBen

Would they have to prove you took illegal drugs with it (or were intending to) instead of tobacco?

I'm pretty sure they could tell enough give them probable cause to arrest you just by smelling it.

Originally Posted by systolic

I'm pretty sure they could tell enough give them probable cause to arrest you just by smelling it.

Which in turn implies that they could not smell it as otherwise they would have had probable cause and arressted him giving an entirely different story.....Hence you have just illustrated the NO STORY comment perfectly.

Originally Posted by systolic

Legally meant to lug it with you?

Not being allowed to leave a gun unattended is not the same as legally meant to lug it with you.
If you were that worried about not breaking the law, why wouldn't you take the gun home and lock it away before getting fish and chips?
Only a fucking idiot would think they should take their gun with them shopping, rather than take it home first and lock it away.

Systolic, I agree with you in pointing out the obvious... that lugging a gun into a shop looks bad. It is of course a fact that some times even a "f*cking idiot" can be very far from home, unable to just pop home and secure the gun, but he still has to eat, no?

As you seem to say, who would in that case not just leave their fire tube in their vehicle rather than lug it inside with them? But you'd be breaking the law by leaving it in your car and if something happened you'd be at the mercy of some cop's discretion. It's a case of a stupid law which is impossible to keep consistently without doing very odd things - like carrying your gun into a takeaway. Instead Kiwis are pushed into their she'll-be-right mode and routinely break the law.

The best answer a cop has given me to the takeaway scenario is that if I do at least take the firearm bolt in with me, or put a trigger lock on the gun, and my car then gets stolen or broken into, I could at least (even though I had clearly still broken the law) show the court that I had attempted to be responsible... while breaking the law.

What we need is legislation about how a firearm may be temporarily kept in a vehicle and still be considered "secured".

Originally Posted by Cordite

What we need is legislation about how a firearm may be temporarily kept in a vehicle and still be considered "secured".

I looked into getting a safe fitted inside my vehicle as I do some long trips with firearms in the truck. It can't be done and signed off so currently there is no way to 'secure' them.

Think this is where common sense comes in. Paying for gas / grabbing takeaways / atm with bolt in pocket and firearms out of sight is very different to leaving them visible and leaving your car for hours.

Originally Posted by timattalon

Which in turn implies that they could not smell it as otherwise they would have had probable cause and arressted him giving an entirely different story.....Hence you have just illustrated the NO STORY comment perfectly.

They gave him a warning, rather than arrest him. They could have arrested him but just warned him instead.

"He has been give a warning for the possession of the bong and we'll follow that up with the firearms officer as to whether we want to take it any further", Hedges said.

If I have to stop off with a rifle in the car, the bolt goes in my pocket, and the rifle goes in the back of the truck with the dog. Therefore, not un attended

Originally Posted by systolic

Legally meant to lug it with you?

Not being allowed to leave a gun unattended is not the same as legally meant to lug it with you.

If you were that worried about not breaking the law, why wouldn't you take the gun home and lock it away before getting fish and chips?

Only a fucking idiot would think they should take their gun with them shopping, rather than take it home first and lock it away.

This is one of the reasons why you come across as a complete fuckwit: you call someone a "fucking idiot" for "taking their gun with them shopping" but fail to appreciate that people have to stop for fuel, accommodation, food, even a piss - makes everyone wonder what world you live in....or even if you are Chris Cahill using a forum handle to stir shit on a forum where people seek advice, help and camaraderie.

One must wonder - why are you even here?

Originally Posted by timattalon

Well Naaaa. It is still currently illegal. As such, if you are prepared to break the law in this manner, then will you comply with other laws that are of similar importance in your mind? That then becomes a slippery slope towards no longer being a fit and proper person.

Now before anyone says it is silly for weed to be illegal or give the many reasons as to why weed should not be illegal, I have no problem with weed itself, and nothing against those who use it. (For whatever reason). But if you feel that because it is a "silly" law for it to be illegal and decide that it is actually OK to smoke weed, bear in mind that this is still breaking the law. What if someone decided another law was silly? Does that mean we get to decide which laws to obey and where do we draw the line? At the end of it all there is one line. Legal / Illegal and that line makes a large part of the decisions that are used to determine "fit and proper". One side has a record, and one does not.

In this particular case, there was no way of determining whether any law had been broken, silly or not. Thus no further action other than a warning to advise that keeping out of these situations may be a better course of action in the future.....

Sure it's illegal, I didn't suggest it wasn't. But because I think it's stupid for weed to be illegal.
Just like I thought it was stupid that it was illegal 2 people of the same sex couldn't get married.
Just like I thought it was stupid that it was illegal for women to vote.
DOESN'T mean I'm prone to thinking drinking and shooting shouldn't be illegal, or any other real issue is stupid, therefore making me likely to break a law that causes real issue.

Originally Posted by Jexla

Sure it's illegal, I didn't suggest it wasn't. But because I think it's stupid for weed to be illegal. Agreed
Just like I thought it was stupid that it was illegal 2 people of the same sex couldn't get married. Agreed
Just like I thought it was stupid that it was illegal for women to vote. Agreed
DOESN'T mean I'm prone to thinking drinking and shooting shouldn't be illegal, or any other real issue is stupid, therefore making me likely to break a law that causes real issue.

That is not entirely what I was getting at. More along the lines of Who decides what laws cause real issues and what ones dont?

I agree with your points above, but my point is while it was illegal for people of the same sex to get married, they could not get married, stupid or not. While it was illegal for women to vote, they would have been charged /arrested / or worse if they had tried. It is not what they are doing that causes the issue, but the fact that they are doing it. If you wish to partake in drugs, at the moment, it is illegal and this will potentially have an effect on your ability to meet the "fit and proper" standard.

The main point is when there is a stupid law, and it remains law, you have two choices; obey or break the law. The big problem is that you and I may see drink driving or shoplifting as a reasonable law, but clearly there are others who see them as stupid laws and they dont obey them. Thus the judgement to break the law in those situations affects their "fit and proper" standing as well.

Simply put, if you wish to have no problems keeping your FA license, then keep within the law. If you decide a law is stupid and it should not apply, and you break it, bear in mind that there are potential repercussions to this. It is not always the action that does the damage, but the fact that someone is prepared to break a law to start with that shows they may not be of character that can be relied on to obey the law and requirements around responsible gun ownership.

Originally Posted by timattalon

That is not entirely what I was getting at. More along the lines of Who decides what laws cause real issues and what ones dont?

I agree with your points above, but my point is while it was illegal for people of the same sex to get married, they could not get married, stupid or not. While it was illegal for women to vote, they would have been charged /arrested / or worse if they had tried. It is not what they are doing that causes the issue, but the fact that they are doing it. If you wish to partake in drugs, at the moment, it is illegal and this will potentially have an effect on your ability to meet the "fit and proper" standard.

The main point is when there is a stupid law, and it remains law, you have two choices; obey or break the law. The big problem is that you and I may see drink driving or shoplifting as a reasonable law, but clearly there are others who see them as stupid laws and they dont obey them. Thus the judgement to break the law in those situations affects their "fit and proper" standing as well.

Simply put, if you wish to have no problems keeping your FA license, then keep within the law. If you decide a law is stupid and it should not apply, and you break it, bear in mind that there are potential repercussions to this. It is not always the action that does the damage, but the fact that someone is prepared to break a law to start with that shows they may not be of character that can be relied on to obey the law and requirements around responsible gun ownership.

I don't think anyone even the police evidently believe smoking weed makes you not a fit and proper person. Nor does it mean, like you HAVE suggested, that you'd be willing to break laws that would make you not a fit and proper person.