Thread: Should Have Been More Than a Warning

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.

I wouldn't rely on the bag being that useful. There was a guy here a couple of months ago that ended up with his face in the dirt carrying a rifle bag.

Originally Posted by gadgetman

I wouldn't rely on the bag being that useful. There was a guy here a couple of months ago that ended up with his face in the dirt carrying JUST a rifle bag.

There that's more like it....

I was gonna mention the guy that got confronted by armed police for carrying a rifle bag. People are just hysterical.

There were some of these on Trademe a couple of months ago for those who can't bear to be out of contact with their guns.

https://www.midwayusa.com/product/88...-gray-and-blue

Originally Posted by systolic

There were some of these on Trademe a couple of months ago for those who can't bear to be out of contact with their guns.

https://www.midwayusa.com/product/88...-gray-and-blue

Would probably then be tackled for trying to conceal it!

Originally Posted by Mauser308

Would be nice if someone who's about to quote a post would take a second to actually read it first!

I did read it.

If he hadn't wanted to attract attention to himself by walking around in public with a rifle slung over his shoulder, the two women would have never have needed to call the cops and the cops wouldn't have needed to get involved.

What you fail to understand is that it is not aginst the law to do so. But it is against the law to behave the way the police did.... so get off your high horse. Yep he might have been making a point, but the point needs to be made.

Richard will make an income from stupid policemen.... the police are proving that the only thing they understand is scrutiny in court....

Originally Posted by Sidney

What you fail to understand is that it is not aginst the law to do so. But it is against the law to behave the way the police did.... so get off your high horse. Yep he might have been making a point, but the point needs to be made.

Richard will make an income from stupid policemen.... the police are proving that the only thing they understand is scrutiny in court....

There's a lot of fucking stupid things you can do that are not against the law.

But, as the old saying goes 'just because you can, doesn't mean you should'.

I have no sympathy for someone who apparently goes out of their way to get attention, then get upset when they get it. Lots of it.

Well actually, wandering around with rifles over your back was commonplace, the public reactions are what have changed. Here is a wee news flash for you the only way a behaviour becomes acceptable is for people to get used to it.

Conversely a behaviour becomes unacceptable when it is furtive and hidden. Better get used to seeing this stuff happen more often, because the public need to get over themselves.

And in so far as stupidity is concerned I think the court has a fair idea of who wins there.. the public excursions with the rifle were completed without incident on both occasions, there was no threat and no issue identified other that the wearing of the said rifle over his back. The turnover was not the issue, even the public notification is not the issue, but the way it was handled by the silly little john wayne with cowboy aspirations, who neither knows the law nor knows how to interact with people; needs to spend less time watching movies and playing with himself in order to not further embarress his employers.

By the way, being upset would be a misinterpretation, rubbing ones hands together at opportunity is quite a different thing.

If anything it highlights some what of a deficiancy in the law. You can't leave a firearm in an unattended (out of sight) vehicle, but firearm owners travel, and have the same needs as everybody else, so, does the law need adjusting to take into account that people need to eat and use the toilet. Maybe it needs to be amended to say that a firearm must not be left unattended in a vehicle for an unreasonable amount of time. Or if left unattended, a critical component must be removed etc

I had an idea of a travel case, made of solid plastic, with a hardened steel bolt that sandwiches it shut through the trigger guard, so that if it was removed from a vehicle, they would have a cunt of a time getting it to a usable state, and if you had a GPS tracker inside it, you could tell the police exactly where it is.

Originally Posted by systolic

I have no sympathy for someone who apparently goes out of their way to get attention, then get upset when they get it. Lots of it.

So, even though he stayed within the letter of the law (and that is the point here), they decide they get to fabricate and tamper with evidence, perjure themselves, and maliciously prosecute someone, merely cos they don't like him and have a bit of a score to settle? Fuck that, that's unacceptable. Do you do the same sort of thing in your very similar role mate?

what about arresting him for obstruction when he pointed out that they didn't know the law?

bunch of arseholes

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.

Link?

Originally Posted by Cordite

Link?

Thread going here http://www.nzhuntingandshooting.co.n...reading-35998/