Thread: Support for tighter Acat storage

Originally Posted by Towely

There is no middle ground and you can all kiss your legal semi autos goodbye in the not so distant future. Fact.

my cold dead hands

Originally Posted by Savage1

The reasoning behind the defining features of E-cat weapons was explained to me by a senior police officer, who explained the reasoningNo where did I mention any thing about all types of persons attracted to them nor did I even mention any of the characteristics of the people that I was talking about. So if you've found any stereotyping or offence in that then it's down to your own lack of comprehension.

You really missed the point.

So what is the point then?

I may agree that security needs to be looked at but this whole thing about features such as pistol grips is not based on any real logic that I can tell.

After talking to some incarcerated burglars during prison preaching. The common consensus among them is that the only thing that will dissuade them from targeting gun owners is if there's a chance that the home owner/ occupant may use a gun for self defence.

They know that we are not allowed to do this so the burglaries will continue. There needs to be a "castle doctrine" law setup in this country and an attitude change from the common people, politicians and police to allow this to happen.

Originally Posted by vbull

After talking to some incarcerated burglars during prison preaching. The common consensus among them is that the only thing that will dissuade them from targeting gun owners is if there's a chance that the home owner/ occupant may use a gun for self defence.

They know that we are not allowed to do this so the burglaries will continue. There needs to be a "castle doctrine" law setup in this country and an attitude change from the common people, politicians and police to allow this to happen.

I was wondering about mentioning the 'castle doctrine' ...thought 'nah better not , might come across like one of redneck good Ol' boys....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by vbull

After talking to some incarcerated burglars during prison preaching. The common consensus among them is that the only thing that will dissuade them from targeting gun owners is if there's a chance that the home owner/ occupant may use a gun for self defence.

They know that we are not allowed to do this so the burglaries will continue. There needs to be a "castle doctrine" law setup in this country and an attitude change from the common people, politicians and police to allow this to happen.

Ain't that the truth! This is why people should consider NZ First as their party vote. Castle Doctrine was introduced in Ireland's 2011 election, so why can't it here? It damn well should be considering there is no deterrent for criminals stealing guns with pathetic sentencing in our corrupt justice system.

Originally Posted by vbull

After talking to some incarcerated burglars during prison preaching. The common consensus among them is that the only thing that will dissuade them from targeting gun owners is if there's a chance that the home owner/ occupant may use a gun for self defence.

They know that we are not allowed to do this so the burglaries will continue. There needs to be a "castle doctrine" law setup in this country and an attitude change from the common people, politicians and police to allow this to happen.

New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 No 109 (as at 01 July 2013), Public Act – New Zealand Legislation

Life and the Security of the Person
As part of the right to life and security of the person, the Act guarantees everyone:

"The right not to be deprived of life except in accordance with fundamental justice (Section 8)"

Means to me that I can defend that right with any means necessary.

Originally Posted by Ryan

New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 No 109 (as at 01 July 2013), Public Act – New Zealand Legislation

Life and the Security of the Person
As part of the right to life and security of the person, the Act guarantees everyone:

"The right not to be deprived of life except in accordance with fundamental justice (Section 8)"

Means to me that I can defend that right with any means necessary.

And lose your entire lifes earnings defending it in court....= you still lose.

I view the "requirements" as the minimum requirement. If you can afford to / want to do better there is nothing to stop you. I also firmly believe that if someone wants to steal my stuff I cannot stop them only make it harder..

Originally Posted by Ryan

New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 No 109 (as at 01 July 2013), Public Act – New Zealand Legislation

Life and the Security of the Person
As part of the right to life and security of the person, the Act guarantees everyone:

"The right not to be deprived of life except in accordance with fundamental justice (Section 8)"

Means to me that I can defend that right with any means necessary.

No, it means you can defend yourself with reasonable force. You have to be prepared to justify any such action because you should assume that you WILL be put on trial for use of lethal force.

Of course, you are NOT allowed to simply defend your property with potentially lethal force, e.g. do not send a couple of .308 rounds in the direction of fleeing cattle rustlers.

NZ is far too pink and the police won't want to give up their legal monopoly on shooting crims.
Putting them in prison long term too keep them out of circulation is probably the only short term option.
Let's just move along.

I suggest that regardless of the law purchasing the best security you can afford is worth it. Regardless of the outcome you will have done the best you can.

Originally Posted by Ryan

New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 No 109 (as at 01 July 2013), Public Act – New Zealand Legislation

Life and the Security of the Person
As part of the right to life and security of the person, the Act guarantees everyone:

"The right not to be deprived of life except in accordance with fundamental justice (Section 8)"

Means to me that I can defend that right with any means necessary.

Any means necessary? Really?

Why don't you talk to a lawyer and see what they say about that?

Originally Posted by systolic

Any means necessary? Really?

Why don't you talk to a lawyer and see what they say about that?

Are you a lawyer troll features?

Out if interest, can anyone reference what is actually statute law for reasonable force and/or necessary force in the defense of oneself or others?

Not wishing to offend anyone but talk of defending yourself is laughable, how many guns are stolen in home invasion?, as to breaking into safes ? How many thieves come equipped with a disc cutter ?
I personally have broken into two safes, both required removing from the wall first, one required a drill, and a socket set, the other a drill , long punch, a near copy of the key, and a schematic of the safe, neither was a quick job.
Having done a few quotes for customers to give to insurance company's , I would say alot of gun owners security is a joke, two I know of had safes broken into, both were in sheds away from there homes.
But if we are to have new storage regulations then we must have new minimum sentencing for illegal possession of firearms, say a minimum of 5yrs jail time.
As to semi auto,s, the horse has already bolted on that one, regarding a cat.

Yeah defending your castle is only going to work if you are home. I have no stats to back this up but I would assume most burglaries still happen when the residents are out. In some places in the world the crims don't care and home invasion is common.