Printable View
ONLY if it was done on peak viewing time on nationwide TV, with at least 7 days notice of when it was being aired ( sorry!!!! "aired" I had a visual of IT with it's arse in the air with a funnel sticking out!!!!! nightmare material!!!)Quote:
Originally Posted by veitnamcam
If a member of the public wants to shoot at our range on public night they have to present there licence if asked, it's a condition of use.Quote:
Originally Posted by top gun
Most of the R/O's are warranted.
Really? If that's the case you should drop Mr Tipple an email, he might be interested in that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beavis
COLFO are awareQuote:
Originally Posted by outdoorlad
Hmm... someone with a documented history of fraud and deception (including obtaining a firearm by fraud) is trying to obtain firearms licence numbers? Maybe the police should be informed too.
ThatsQuote:
Originally Posted by GravelBen
, I mean very suspicious and definitely something the police should look into...Quote:
dodgy as all f__K
I'll make a prediction right now. Knowing who her husband is and all the politicing & weaselling that he'll be doing on her behalf down at Fort Fumble ( parliament ), plus the failure of police to prosecute other high profile persons and for politicians to find ways of NOT prosecuting people involved in terrorist type training camps in NZ;
The NZ Police will not be prosecuting anyone involved in this fiasco!!!! ( I hope I'm wrong)
However I have strong suspicions that all the four or five people involved directly and/or those aiding a abetting the commitment of this crime WILL be prosecuted privately & brought before the courts on SEVERAL charges with the sort of sentences that would be handed down to any of us who were silly enough to try to be this dopey.
You guys still going on about this? :o
Anyone who has been following this attack on our firearm laws ( not you Gibo obviously) AND by association, us law abiding firearm owners should check out page A10 of the NZ Herald ( 9th Dec 2015 )
THE PLOT THICKENS!!!!!!!
Is this the article your referring to?Quote:
Originally Posted by top gun
http://m.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/arti...ectid=11557932
What's there to follow? Dickhead journo's getting let off for breaking the law?Quote:
Originally Posted by top gun
No Res that was from last Thursday 3rd Dec. The one I referred to was today Wednesday the 9th page A10.
Check it out. It is very interesting as the net gets cast wider & wider & more of the conspiring arseholes are being dragged into the mire!!!! & bloody good to see too.
Gibo, As I have predicted ( I may be wrong) that if the cops are politically nudged NOT to prosecute these shite headsQuote:
Originally Posted by Gibo
you can be assured that a private prosecution is sitting in the wings waiting to go. At least the cops are providing more & more names to add to the charge sheets!!!!
3rd? It's dated 8th on there websiteQuote:
Originally Posted by top gun
Not all of us can just pop out and buy a heralded-in fact it's a uncommon paper in a lot of NZ. Could you give us a photo of the article or a link to a online version?
@res The Big Read: Twist to TV gun-buying tale - National - NZ Herald NewsQuote:
Originally Posted by res
It's even uncommon in Auckland, it's just a gossip tabloid these days.Quote:
Originally Posted by res
Thanks,but that seems to be the article I linked that I'm told is not the one we are told to look at.Quote:
Originally Posted by stug
Hi Res,Quote:
Originally Posted by res
I agree that the herald is just another tabloid & is full of recycled crap but it is the best of a bad choice around here & sometimes they have something worth reading. It costs me $6 a week to have it delivered, so it's cheaper than the local "culturally correct" rag!!!
The clip that you sent on the forum was definitely from the paper of thursday 3rd Dec page A15. But the article that thickened the plot was yesterdays ( 9th Dec ) Page A10. It is well worth a read because it names all sorts of interesting names.
I'll be surprised if the forces of eve
il have managed to suppress the herald's online version.
Sorry I'm computer illiterate & can't even cut & paste!!!!
If all else fails let me know & I'll mail you a copy of the cutting.
Beers to all. ( except TV3!!!)
Wow. Good on them for being sure but I bet that was the result of the HDPA shenanigans and it seems to me that the rim lays another charge for the needless misdirection od Police resources. I would have thought that they would have had enough to do at this time of year without that sort of distraction.Quote:
Originally Posted by hamsav
Your wife's cell phone number was probably on the vetting application file from when you were last interviewed. Your cell number may have changed since then so they used your wife's number to contact you.
Hamsav,
Remember Big Brother is ALWAYS watching & recording!!!!!
I was a suspect in the Fonterra 1080/milk powder fiasco & Big Brother had me in their sights!!!!
Who knows what they know about each of us?????
Keep your powder dry!!!!
Interesting,
I did the mail order thing for a new rifle today for the first time since the changes, sure the form is different, email both ends required etc but certainly no hassle
Funnily enough I expected the police to quibble about the PO box address I provided on the form for the seller but not a word mentioned.
Guess they can check by the persons Firearms licence anyways.
What surprised me is I live in a town or 15 thousand and a district of 20 thousand + and they still sent the form to the Dunedin police for emailing to the supplier.
I know this because the Dunedin AO rang me this arvo, ostensibly to check my email address, she was very polite and it all went without a hitch.
Recently done the same thing. Form gets emailed from station to AO, who then checks details and emails to seller. In my case last week, they wouldn't let me use my work address as a delivery even though everyone at my workplace holds a valid firearms license and someone's there all the time to sign for it--we all hunt together. And I was then told I couldn't have it sent to my home address cos the wife doesn't have a firearms license. So the AO informed me that I had to organise shipping depot to depot. That's an unnecessary pain in the arse if you ask me.
Backward SI AO I suspect;)
I got one done the other day. Got it delivered to work no problem.
With that new system , I hope you guys realise it is the beginning of some form registration...
yeah course it is
serial number required etc or else no go
personally it doesn't bother me but I can see it would upset some people.
Interesting that @JoshC as my wife doesn't hold a firearms licence and there was no mention of any bother sending it to my place
Guess they would be the same AO, unless yours was done in Invercargill
I used one of the new forms just over a week ago. I was thinking " here we go, how long is this going to take?" I was pleasantly surprised.
I filled out the form at 6pm thurs..... got a call from the arms oficer at 7am the next morning and the completed form emailed to me a couple of minutes later..... easy as!
Ammo arrived monday mornin!
Also delivered to my work no problem.
.You should have asked what is the difference if your wife had a licence, to the guys at your work? That argument would not stand up in a court.Quote:
Originally Posted by JoshC
1. They have all been vetted all hold valid licenes
2. As such there not braking the law.
3. ...? So no difference bettween the two/ apart form the sexs:P
Wanted to put give me my facken guns but thought better of it:thumbsup:
Better not let the courier touch it then. Possibly no license. What was once a usable system is now a cluster fuck. Nobody at the station in my town wants to know about a mail order form unless the AO is in. I usually never have time to see him because work, and usually when I do make time, he's not there.
When I finally got a form done for some ammo, after over a week of fucking around, I found it interesting that they wanted to know what kind of rifle I'm gonna use it in. Thought it was a bit of a pointless question.
The Arms Act states that couriers/freight firms do not need a firearms licence to carry firearms/ammunition.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beavis
Just goit this through nice to see some of them are on or side!
Westminster Hall debate on "usage of lead shot in ammunition"
On Tuesday Gerald Jones, the Labour MP for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney, secured a one hour Westminster Hall debate on 'usage of lead shot in ammunition'. Even the title of this discussion was odd in that it seemed to exclude discussion of lead bullets, but given that Mr Jones had never previously shown any interest in shooting it may just have been a misunderstanding.
He read out his opening statement from a script which sounded remarkably similar to the public statements made by the RSPB and Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust. Indeed it was noticeable that there were more staff from those organisations in attendance than the three MPs (including Mr Jones) who were willing to argue for further restrictions on lead ammunition. As I have said before it is very sad that two organisations that do so much brilliant conservation work give such priority to a campaign which, is at least in part, clearly motivated by an antipathy to shooting as a whole.
A number of MPs, led by our own Chairman Simon Hart argued forcibly that there was no justification for a ban on lead ammunition. Simon declared an unusual interest in the debate by stating the fact that he was “probably the only Member who has been shot by a lead cartridge… It was about 35 years ago and I still carry 20 lead pellets in my left knee"' he added that "colleagues will judge whether that has affected my physical or mental state.”
Charles Walker MP stated that “tungsten, bismuth and hevi-shot cost five to seven times as much as lead. A significant part of most people’s shooting budget.”
Jim Shannon MP brought his experience shooting and wildfowling in Northern Ireland to the debate arguing that attempts to ban lead ammunition are “unjust and unfair and highlight the way in which science can be used and manipulated to suit a political agenda”.
Rishi Sunak MP and Geoffrey Clifton-Brown MP argued that evidence on the impact of lead ammunition in the UK has failed to pass rigorous academic scrutiny and the risks have been exaggerated. They also stated that a ban on lead would have serious implications for the gun trade, the rural economy and the natural environment
Alex Cunningham MP, a shadow Defra Minister, was forced to concede that there was no evidence in the UK of any premature death caused by lead ammunition which prompted Simon Hart to suggest that “unless he [Cunningham] can come up with that evidence, he is doing nothing more than mischief making”.
George Eustice MP responded for the Government and stated that since half of the Lead Ammunition Group members had resigned “we are therefore in a position in which we have no expert consensus about the impact of lead ammunition on wildlife or human health”, but did acknowledge that current compliance levels with existing legislation were disappointing.
This is not a matter of debate and is something that all speakers agreed on. Adherence with the current restrictions for shooting wildfowl and shooting over wetlands is non-negotiable. Using lead shot in contradiction of the regulations is not only environmentally damaging, but also risks the future use of lead ammunition for all shooting. None of us should think that it is acceptable either personally, or from those who we shoot with.
Doesn't it make you wonder why they picked that transaction?Quote:
Originally Posted by hamsav
You sure are getting the short end of the stick there mate, I'd suggest implying to your AO that they should talk to a few other AO's around the country and see if they're making those same rules up too.Quote:
Originally Posted by JoshC
AOs make their own rules! Shit it's different all over the country :O_O:
If the use of the Police "Arms Office" stamp was an absolute must in every police district, then these forgeries would be picked up very quickly. I thought that this stamp WAS standard procedure everywhere in NZ but from a lot of comments here it obviously isn't!!!! Was this the loophole that the feds have supposedly plugged?????
We all get denigrated as naughty firearm owners because the police can't run a piss up in a brewery OR are the topdogs at police HQ deliberately allowing a fairly fail safe system to fail????
I would never have actioned a mail order form that didn't have the Arms Office stamp in the bottom right hand corner. Now people wishing to do a mail order transaction for a firearm or ammo have to coordinate their available time at work etc to meet the possibility of someone actually being in an Arms Office when they want a mail order form actioned!!!!! How many non-event visits to the copshop would that take????? & who can just get in their vehicle & leave work or the farm or wherever & front off down to an arms office????? After 2 or 3 failed visits the boss may well get a bit testy eh?????
Who is being put thru the hoops and seriously inconvenienced because of the police failing to have a standardised procedure right throughout NZ?????
I'll bet that the police "Arms Manual" lays out the procedure very clearly but some arms offices fail to follow their own directions & guess who gets the shitty end of the stick???? Good old law abiding forearm owners, AGAIN!!!!!!!!!!
HdPA and others must be getting great glee from some of the comments on this open forum. There will be a fair few "I told you so's" and sage nodding of heads in the media.
Are you crediting them with the ability to read and research?Quote:
Originally Posted by zimmer
Zimmer me old trout, I think those wankers at TV3 will be shitting themselves not being quite sure whether "dear hubby" will get the heat taken off them or not being too sure whether GC will proceed with a private prosecution of the whole pack of the conniving bastards!!!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by zimmer
If I was them I'd be getting my toothbrush & jammies ready for quite a few months in the slammer!!!!!
Let's hope the hua's read THAT bit,eh????
We can only hope but in this case I am fearfully certain there will be nothing nasty happen to them, but I hope I am wrong...Quote:
Originally Posted by top gun
Maybe we can all wish it as a Christmas present for us. Better than the undies and singlets I normally get.
Surely they could just forge the stamp if they were so inclined.Quote:
Originally Posted by top gun
Nope. It just says that the form should be "endorsed' by a member of the Police. Which can include just signing it.Quote:
Originally Posted by top gun
There never has been any legal requirement for a Police seal or stamp on any mail order form.
7.14 Mail Order Sales of Firearms and Ammunition.
Section 43A, Arms Act 1983 creates an offence to sell firearms or ammunition by “mail order” except pursuant to a written order signed by the purchaser and endorsed by Police that the member of Police has inspected their licence, and that they are fit and proper to purchase that firearm or ammunition.
Police Arms Manual 2002