Thread: Support for tighter Acat storage

Originally Posted by Savage1

The BOR act isn't the relevant legislation you're all wanting.

Basically comes down to section 48 & 62 of the Crimes Act

Lol

Sent from my SM-G900I using Tapatalk

As per @Savage1,

From NZ Crimes Act 1961:
48 Self-defence and defence of another
Every one is justified in using, in the defence of himself or herself or another, such force as, in the circumstances as he or she believes them to be, it is reasonable to use.
62 Excess of force
Every one authorised by law to use force is criminally responsible for any excess, according to the nature and quality of the act that constitutes the excess.

Nothing too unusual or un-British there.

The Connor Morris trial is a hard one as there were a "group" of head hunters beating Murray's brother... Bringing a knife (sickle) to a fist fight as described in the article was where Murray went wrong but then again, he was watching is brother get beaten badly by a pack of HH's.

Also to note: September 2007: Stephen Bellingham was shot by police in Christchurch after damaging property then approaching an officer with a hammer raised. The Independent Police Conduct Authority found the officer acted in self-defense.

So there appears to be inconsistency with case by case trials on self defense. Because if a regular civilian smoked a guy that was approaching him or her with a hammer, is that excessive force or reasonable???

It appears there are anti-freedom loopholes in regards to this that could be fixed hopefully this election.

As long as there is law and politicians there will be loop holes remove the laws and politicians no more loop holes

Hypothetical situation here

If I was to be driving down the road and saw a group of youths going to town on a young girl with baseball bats and one was getting a machete from the car, would it be within my rights to pull a rifle or pistol from my car that was there with legal intentions (wife calls cops I'm the mean time) and I take the time to load the rifle and threaten them to no avail... proceed to take a pot shot or two to try to scare them off to no avail... And then finally shoot the guy with the machete centre of mass as a show of force because I truly believed the woman would die. Would this not still be use of excessive force as i had a gun while they had bats/machete? Is that not the same as the cop shooting the guy who had a hammer?

No intentions to point fingers at the police here, Just curious.

Originally Posted by Macca

Hypothetical situation here

If I was to be driving down the road and saw a group of youths going to town on a young girl with baseball bats and one was getting a machete from the car, would it be within my rights to pull a rifle or pistol from my car that was there with legal intentions (wife calls cops I'm the mean time) and I take the time to load the rifle and threaten them to no avail... proceed to take a pot shot or two to try to scare them off to no avail... And then finally shoot the guy with the machete centre of mass as a show of force because I truly believed the woman would die. Would this not still be use of excessive force as i had a gun while they had bats/machete? Is that not the same as the cop shooting the guy who had a hammer?

No intentions to point fingers at the police here, Just curious.

I would say that is reasonable and not excessive. There is a spectrum of force that can be applied in any situation, from restraining someone, to pushing them, to striking them, to using a blunt instrument, to using an edged weapon, to using a distance weapon like a bow or a firearm. The likelihood of lethality increases along the spectrum.

In my mind it would likely be deemed excessive to meet non-lethal force with likely lethal force. You don't shoot someone for shoving you. If someone comes at you (or anyone else) with a machete (a likely lethal means), then that threat can be REASONABLY countered with the minimum available means that is likely to stop the threat.

I wouldn't get into a sword fight with another swordsman of equal skill. I would shoot him. But it might be seen as unreasonable to mag dump into him.

I recall a lesson on vehicle checkpoints and rules of engagement. If a vehicle tried to crash through the barrier, you weren't allowed to open fire. But if you or another soldier were standing in the way, then the car and driver became a lethal threat, to be countered with lots of bullets.

All just my P.O.V. Not to be treated as legal advice.

If someone runs at you with a golf club you can shoot them.

Originally Posted by inglishill

If someone runs at you with a golf club you can shoot them.

Yep, because a blow to the head would most likely be lethal.

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk

Yeah, I was referencing that bloke the police shot a few years back for it.

Originally Posted by inglishill

Yeah, I was referencing that bloke the police shot a few years back for it.

Yep. That case features in the stuff article with various examples I linked to earlier.

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk

Macca, I can see what you're saying, and why you're saying it in the initial post. However I've just moved here from Canada where the laws were tightened in the 90's with some support from the gun community along these lines, and the restrictions didn't stop there. The federal police (RCMP) are now at the stage where they're permitted to interpret the law at will, and change their interpretations when it suits them. The end result is the reclassification of firearms into more restricted (outright prohibited) categories, which has yet to ever be successfully appealed. Usually they go after importers once the guns are in country and paid for, so the company is out of pocket on the whole deal and has to pay for the guns to sit in impound at port while it's fought over in court. In the end it costs the businesses customers and puts huge dents in their pocket books, hurting their ability to bring in more guns in the future, which appears to be the purpose of the whole exercise.

Interestingly, Canada had a registry for all guns, including what would be considered A Category here. You had to call a usually quite unpleasant operator to transfer a firearm to another person, then wait for them to mail you a transfer, then a new registration. Unfortunately, that also meant every time they changed their minds on what was illegal, they would send you a letter requiring it be turned over for destruction (without compensation) or you'd have a three year jail sentence. That annoyed enough people that they lobbied to remove the non-restricted/A Category registry.... which is a pity because in other ways it did help limit guns used in crime.... but it was abused by the RCMP.

So yes, the gun community would be wise to be proactive and meet the issue head on, but how they do so is the issue. I don't believe that supporting more restrictive laws is a good idea. In Canada at least, it has lead to a culture in which firearms ownership is being consistently eroded, and in many ways it appears Canada is just further down the path than NZ is at the moment... which makes sense because last I heard the RCMP had been consulted by the NZ police on their firearms program.

Where the Canadian organizations are making their greatest gains is in forming organized active national groups that are financially strong enough to employ lawyers to fight their battles. They're also slowly learning that engaging the non-shooting public is vital to removing gun control from public agenda. It's easy for the gun community to preach to the choir how guns aren't a problem (all of us have sat around the table with other hunters or shooters and talked about how ridiculous further restricting laws would be)... but we aren't the audience that needs it. Running charity fundraisers in the public realm, doing community volunteer work as a shooting organization, publicized public range days or outdoor field trips for families and children with game dinners at the end do a good job of helping the public see who the firearms community really is.

In this way, the firearms community will not burn any bridges with the NZ police, and will gain broader public support, thus removing the major impetus for increased restrictions. I've honestly been pleasantly surprised by how friendly and open the police and firearms related officials have been that I've interacted with here. Admittedly, things have been pretty limited, but I'm used to interactions being icy at best, so having someone volunteer information and make suggestions has been quite the novelty. Maybe since the bridges haven't been burned here like they have in Canada, there is an option for the firearms community to help support the police without requiring tougher laws. I'm too new here to really understand the dynamics at play, but I can at least offer insight from Canada.

In thinking about it further, if low quality A-Category storage lockers are the issue, it seems to me that Arms Officers are already capable of denying permission without a change in the laws. It is within their discretion to grant or deny storage, so without making it a legal requirement they could just decide to not pass flimsier safes. Is this not the case?

Asking for stronger security measures to appease people who hate guns is irrational, foolish, indeed it could be called stupid behaviour. It is an own goal. It is actively working to remove firearms use from the NZ population. In the same way that a vote for any political party except NZ First, is a vote against firearms ownership in NZ.
I know my fellow citizens and I accept that most of you will vote for more gun control, and settle down to give up your sport bit by bit in the cause of safety. You will get the govt. you deserve, and they will serve it up to you.

I lock my car, I lock the door on my house, I put my wallet in a safe place, my money in the bank, and guess what I look my guns in a safe as they are valuable, as to voting NZ first

Originally Posted by JWB

Asking for stronger security measures to appease people who hate guns is irrational, foolish, indeed it could be called stupid behaviour. It is an own goal. It is actively working to remove firearms use from the NZ population. In the same way that a vote for any political party except NZ First, is a vote against firearms ownership in NZ.
I know my fellow citizens and I accept that most of you will vote for more gun control, and settle down to give up your sport bit by bit in the cause of safety. You will get the govt. you deserve, and they will serve it up to you.

To assume that people are only asking for stronger security measures in order to appease people who hate guns is stupid irrational and wilfully arrogant.

I'd love to see a rational explanation for the first three sentences of your post.

I think there are two distinct schools of thought.

There is and always will be crime and criminals. Crime and criminals are gradually getting worse, more criminals are willing to use violence against other criminals, the police and the public. More criminals are willing to use and want guns to this end. Most criminals get their firearms illegally through theft, generally from residential burglaries. Because of this, and because it is too hard and will take too long to solve the issues that create criminals, gun owners need to give some ground and bare the financial burden of securing their firearms to a greater standard, making it more difficult to all but the most determined theives to steal their guns. This will at least slow the flow of guns to criminal hands and the black market.

The other school of thought, is that society needs to address the issues that create criminals in the first place, rather than imposing more regulations on generally honest, law abiding and productive members of society. Making gun owners install better safes won't stop or prevent criminals from committing burglaries in the first place, because there are no real consequences for theft in this country. The government, judiciary, police and to a greater extent society, need to grow a spine and dish out real punishments for offenders and lock up repeat offenders for a very long time. The authorities need to put more effort into destroying organised crime. Society needs to sort it's shit out so less people become criminals.

That's how I'm looking at the debate