Thread: Warning shot for gun owners

Originally Posted by 7mmwsm

I take issue with people telling me that while I am considered a fit and proper person and I am obeying the laws of this country, that it is a privalige to own a firearm, drive a car etc.
If I were to rape a kid or bash an old lady those same people would put me in jail and tell me that I now have rights. Our system is arse about face.
As for the self defence issue, I have been led to believe that you may use what ever force you deem neccessary, but you may be judged on that decision.
Also, it is not illegal to use a spotlight on public property. The possesion of a firearm while using a spotlight is a different story.

The line between defence and assault is grey. Essentially, you first have to prove that you believed the assailant had the "present means and ability" to assault you. (eg a 54kg woman threatening to thump me - I'm 116kg - doesn't justify me bashing her in to 'defend' myself). Secondly there's the "subjective and objective test".

The subjective test is what you did on the occasion, based on the facts as you believed them to be at the time.
The objective test is what the Court considers; both what you knew at the time, and all the other facts and relevant case law that can be considered and debated at ease after the event. In other words, 'self defence' may pass your subjective test, but the Court, when applying the objective test may well find otherwise.

The reality is that possession of a 'ready' weapon for self-defense purposes can create an argument for pre-mediation - ie assault.

Example: If I keep a loaded shotgun at my (urban) back door, it's hard to argue it was there ready for ducks..... (there is case law both ways on this). However, if I happen to have left a pruning saw in same location (and I have some shrubs in my garden), it's easier to argue I had left it there in anticipation of doing some pruning.

A key point there of course is that many householders particularly fail to understand that the weapon will be taken (or attempted) off them by the alleged assailant. Pokers, softball bats and the like are just too easy to hold onto and use against yourself. Pruning saws are vicious, and work with the body's natural reaction to pull back when grabbed.

Get my drift?

Frankly I agree with the views of many forum members who hold a FAL: you will use all reasonable means to protect life and limb of your family and self. I will too. We just have to be intelligent about it.

A simple test is "what is the worst that could happen to me?". If you're more worried about trouble with the Police or Courts afterwards, then possibly the primary remedy you're considering might be excessive. Equally, if it's life-and-limb stuff, the 'reasonable' argument may stack up.

As far as gun ownership goes, I think you have a "right" to apply for a FAL and that is about it - this was recently clarified in a court case. Other than that, I think you have a right to do or own what ever you please, as long as it is not expressly forbidden by the law of the land. You have a right to self defense, but it boils down to whether the courts and your peers deem it to be self defense. I have no idea what police policy is on the matter - it appears to be to charge anybody who uses force against another, then it is up to you to prove it was reasonable.

A shit system, but that's what we collectively choose to live in.

To lighten the mood somewhat, here is George Carlin's take on "rights" and "privileges". The actual rights part is about 3:50 into the video. It is well worth watching, trust me

Originally Posted by veitnamcam

As far as im aware US citizens must have a permit
If you are fit and proper it is your right.
Just like a drivers license........At least that has an eye test. and a practical.and a probation period.

So you are saying that in America it is a 3 year olds constitutional right to own and use unsupervised a machine gun?

in most all USA states (i believe every state but lemme cover my arse) you can legally own a long gun with no permit......PROVIDED you have not had the right taken away from you, ie if you are a convicted felon you can not own firearms.....or vote for that matter!)

now, some states and some cities have created a permite system for firearms......i live behind enemy lines in one such state......in NY you need a permit to own and carry a handgun. in NYC you need apermit to own a long rifle....it is almost impossible to get a handgun permit for NYC. my state handgun permit is NOT valid in NYC! sound stupid/crazy but it is not worth the felony charge it brings....so i basically am unable to protect myself in NYC....even most knives are outlawed there! as a result the criminals fear no one (and we have all seen that the NYC police can not handle ther weapons so the crimnals do not fear teh police either)

sorry, rant over.

there are some other states that require handgun licenses. and then other state do NOT require any handgun licenses at all. some states that do not require a permit to open carry but you need a permit to concealed carry.

i hope this helps.

i am glad that the kiwis are allowed to own firearms. (can you all own pistols?)

eddie

Eddie, I am not a pistol owner but my understanding that there are restrictions around a firearms license for pistols in that you need to be a member of a pistol club and only use it at the club. If I am wrong then someone will correct me.

Eddie, here's some background info for you

Gun politics in New Zealand - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Self defense is not seen as a valid motivation for firearm ownership in NZ. Concealed carry of handguns is illegal, in fact the street cops don't carry firearms on their person. Locked in the trunk of their car, as well as some specially trained armed offender squads. The police here actually learn to deal with people, and I am constantly amazed by their level-headed approach to abuse and their ability to defuse potentially violent situations.

Pistols are allowed on a individual endorsement, and require specific storage, transport etc. A valid reason for handgun ownership for instance would be IPSC or Olympic type target shooting.

Originally Posted by eddie gunks

i am glad that the kiwis are allowed to own firearms. (can you all own pistols?)

eddie

Very easy for a 'fit and proper' person here to own rifles and shotguns, even buying semi-auto ARs and AKs is no problem at the moment (if you can afford it!), but hand-guns are almost impossible for the average person to get hold of. They are seen and treated as a totally different class of weapon, I don't think my local gun-store even holds any hand guns, they might be locked away in a separate room ?

I should also add that I think our extremely low rate of gun-crime combined with relatively high rate of gun ownership is a pretty good endorsement on our own system, the combination of vetting and licensing the person rather than the gun and ensuring everyone has appropriate storage before being allowed a license surely seems to work well.

FYI

Anyone eligable as per the relevant Act can apply for a FAL. If they meet all the requirements and pass legislative tests then the Act states "a FAL shall be issued". So it is a right of sorts but only within certain defined parameters. And of course the FAL licence can be taken away and so in many ways I view it more as a priviledge and of course a great responsibility.

As for the self defence issue I dont think that should be used as a blanket reason for everyone to have a gun under the bed....

I would hate to think in any society firearm ownership was an automatic, unsupervised and unquantified right, met too many dickheads with one !.

(Sctn 24 Arms Act)

Originally Posted by ebf

Eddie, here's some background info for you

Gun politics in New Zealand - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Self defense is not seen as a valid motivation for firearm ownership in NZ. Concealed carry of handguns is illegal, in fact the street cops don't carry firearms on their person. Locked in the trunk of their car, as well as some specially trained armed offender squads. The police here actually learn to deal with people, and I am constantly amazed by their level-headed approach to abuse and their ability to defuse potentially violent situations.

Pistols are allowed on a individual endorsement, and require specific storage, transport etc. A valid reason for handgun ownership for instance would be IPSC or Olympic type target shooting.

I agree ebf - the skill-set - as well as common-sense approach used by our boys (and girls) in blue is beyond question - they do a brilliant job in potentially life-threatening situations. It is a lesson we all need to remember; is there a non-violent alternative strategy that might de-escalate that situation?

I'm a responsible gun owner - and accept that with my priviledges, there are reponsibilities. The sad reality today is certainly one where we cannot even make flippant remarks about using firearms in less-than-responsible situations.

Forum members may well bear to remember that trial-by-media can have far more devastating consequences than even trial-by-court; our words here are public record. let them be seen to be those of wise, considered and responsible gun-owners.

Most gun shops will carry handguns in NZ but they aren't on show.Two classes of licence can own handguns B = can be used at a pistol club and C = owned but never used [collected]Neither licence endorsement is that easy to obtain any more.

awesome reading, its a shame that in-proper and unfit people can fake it till they make it when applying for a FAL..... coz at the end of the day its that unfit person who shines through, as shown in this case with the two spotlighters

Originally Posted by Ryan

I'm in favour of this too.

Firearm ownership is a privilege and they should be used responsibly.

Can you give me some advice Ryan? how to you determine that firearm ownership is a privilege?

Cheers
R

well its bloody good to see a judge use the commonsense approach.LIke DIU -the m ajority of us licensed persons know when ere told 'dont do it ,we are waitingfor you" we dont.
whats more gutchurning is this is almost the identical setting to the now infamous tragedy,yet people still want to "do it"

Can I ask a dumb question?

Lets say I'm on public land hunting until last light. On the walk back to hut/tent/bivvy I'm walking with a head torch on, rifle is still loaded in the magazine - am I technically spotlighting or not? Would hate to get rangered for this even though I'm not hunting.