Thread: Support for tighter Acat storage

You remind me of Clinton during the "Assault Weapons" ban during the 90's in the US.

It has nothing to do with the "evil" aesthetics of firearms being attracted to a certain type of person. Your statement is so stereotypical and tasteless. It's much more simpler then that and it's to do with where the industry is headed man. Our cars are more technologically advanced & safer to drive now and so too are our firearms - Their modularity alone is endless. Hence forth I have no qualms in why I choose to use firearms with such (safety) features and the reasons behind it. I threw safety in there because I have a bad wrist... And a pistol grip helps me immensely in the operation of those types of firearms. Does that make me a weirdo because of it?

Savage was not stating his opnion, he was stating the resoning that was used when the rule was made- maybe it was valid back then and maybe it wasnt but I personly think the modern modular nature of a lot of modern firarms makes it a mute point these days

Originally Posted by 300CALMAN

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.

Additional anti theft security does not have to be expensive to be effective. Everyone keeps going on about "this safe" and "that safe". Where some of the most effective security I have seen involved an average safe at best. But inside that safe were a number of big heavy F--K off steel eyes with a wire bike lock that passed though each magazine well and onto a big padlock. $10 to $20 per padlock, with two rifles to a padlock, and about 5 bike cables cost about $100 all up. The U/O that did not have a mag well had a Hasp and staple arrangement that meant the action / trigger was attached to the inside of the cabinet with another padlock.

If a thief has time, they can get anything. We need to make it as difficult as possible.

A cat security has a primary function of stopping those who should not be playing with them from hurting them selves- Children and people in the house etc. We can only do our best to stop theft, but we must stop a child getting access and hurting themselves or others by mistake.

Originally Posted by Sasquatch

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?

Crimes Act 1961, section 48

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.

Section 48: replaced, on 1 January 1981, by section 2(1) of the Crimes Amendment Act 1980 (1980 No 63).

They need to make the thief of firearms in a burglary a mitigating factor, mandatory minimum sentence of 5yrs+ no parole. At the moment it's a joke & the crimes know it. Get caught supplying/making meth 15yrs minimum.

Originally Posted by Cordite

Hunt4Life, thanks for bringing this case to our attention. Some points.

1. Too early to say, "luckily it didn't", don't you think?

2. Minimum A-cat security requirement by law is "sturdy construction". How does this case demonstrate the law should be tightened?

Simply because the AO had approved the cabinet as compliant ie. of sturdy construction. Yet one solid strike with a mallet proved it wasn't so sturdy. Interpretation seems to be a common theme.

I agree the primary focus should be on significantly harsher penalties for burglary and particularly when caught with illegal possession of firearms.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Another great example of tougher sentencing Sentence overturned for paintball shooter who blasted group outside a bar - NZ Herald This is simply a joke, I kind of feel like our legal system is just taking the piss.

Originally Posted by inglishill

Another great example of tougher sentencing Sentence overturned for paintball shooter who blasted group outside a bar - NZ Herald This is simply a joke, I kind of feel like our legal system is just taking the piss.

First of all, shame on the system for not letting the victim know he was appealing!

Apart from that, did the boy set out to blind the woman? No. He did something stupid which had very bad consequences. How about similar sentences for people who cause death by reckless driving??? The initial sentence was disproportionate.

Originally Posted by systolic

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

@systolic. You have, as a law-abiding person, the right to defend your right to life, against anyone and with any means necessary. The important, moderating word to consider is of course "necessary". Did you really not know this?

Originally Posted by Cordite

@systolic. You have, as a law-abiding person, the right to defend your right to life, against anyone and with any means necessary. The important, moderating word to consider is of course "necessary". Did you really not know this?

No, the important word word is reasonable.

There's a difference between reasonable and "any means necessary"

Someone posted the bit of the law a couple of pages back in this thread.

To be reasonable is to have sound judgment and be sensible, "any means necessary" is determined, existing, or happening by natural laws or predestination; inevitable. Which in turn goes back to the fundamental wording you have missed - No one shall be deprived of life (of a person) lacking a specified benefit that is considered important. The key word there is shall.

It is considered important because it is our natural God-given right.

Originally Posted by Sasquatch

To be reasonable is to have sound judgment and be sensible, "any means necessary" is determined, existing, or happening by natural laws or predestination; inevitable. Which in turn goes back to the fundamental wording you have missed - No one shall be deprived of life (of a person) lacking a specified benefit that is considered important. The key word there is shall.

It is considered important because it is our natural God-given right.

And what happens if the person is not trying to actually kill you (deprive you of life)?

Like someone jabbing you in the back of the leg with a nail? Can you use any means necessary? Or can you only use reasonable force to stop them?

Originally Posted by systolic

And what happens if the person is not trying to actually kill you (deprive you of life)?

Like someone jabbing you in the back of the leg with a nail? Can you use any means necessary? Or can you only use reasonable force to stop them?

Your scenario is a tad outlandish but if it were me I would opt for reasonable force & crack them in the head really hard with my fist. Given that the nail was of decent length that is... If it was stapler material then I would push them away and tell them to scat.

What would you do systolic? Don't ignore, provide a decent answer.

Originally Posted by systolic

And what happens if the person is not trying to actually kill you (deprive you of life)?

Like someone jabbing you in the back of the leg with a nail? Can you use any means necessary? Or can you only use reasonable force to stop them?

Reasonable force only, but the other important wording is "in the circumstances as he or she believes them to be". What level of force can be deemed reasonable to use to defend yourself depends on the circumstances AS PERCEIVED BY THE DEFENDANT.

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.

Compare and contrast section 48 with sections 52 - 56, Defence of Property.

The Defence of Property sections all say "do not strike or do bodily harm to the other person" EXCEPT when defending your home from breaking and entering:



http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/p...est/whole.html

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk

Here's some examples:

Connor Morris trial: The case for self-defence | Stuff.co.nz, and more recently: http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crim...a-murder-trial

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

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