Thread: Wtf

Originally Posted by Dougie

I say I'm preventing an accident.

I love the softly, softly, gentle approach Dougie. I'm the same. I am there and within very quick reach.

Acknowledging that I am a barbaric SOB who is out of place in modern society and who has extreme views on such matters, I still can't help but think that the simple application of a no lesser retaliation policy would have a far greater impact.

Ah, Rushy - could you clarify what you mean by a no lesser retaliation policy?

Either I've missed something or I'm a bit thick cos I don't understand what you mean by that

Originally Posted by Rushy

Acknowledging that I am a barbaric SOB who is out of place in modern society and who has extreme views on such matters, I still can't help but think that the simple application of a no lesser retaliation policy would have a far greater impact.

Originally Posted by 308

Ah, Rushy - could you clarify what you mean by a no lesser retaliation policy?

Either I've missed something or I'm a bit thick cos I don't understand what you mean by that

Certainly 308 but before I do I would hasten to add that I do not wish to cause nor engage in a negative debate on this forum that I enjoy so much so I will do so in the clear understanding that I will not comment further beyond explaining my view to you. I strongly believe in the concept of an eye for an eye.

Thanks Rushy - I completely understand your desire to stay positive on the forum

Originally Posted by Rushy

Certainly 308 but before I do I would hasten to add that I do not wish to cause nor engage in a negative debate on this forum that I enjoy so much so I will do so in the clear understanding that I will not comment further beyond explaining my view to you. I strongly believe in the concept of an eye for an eye.

Originally Posted by Rushy

Certainly 308 but before I do I would hasten to add that I do not wish to cause nor engage in a negative debate on this forum that I enjoy so much so I will do so in the clear understanding that I will not comment further beyond explaining my view to you. I strongly believe in the concept of an eye for an eye.

The prob with your logic in these type of cases... is that you cannot apply that intentionally, where the original event was unintentional. It would not be the same thing.

Ah, I've just thought of a way for a person not to have possession or use of a firearm!

Life long parole conditions. However again, this won't happen in this situation with Dummer. Life parole is usually reserved for someone who could be served with a life sentence and in extreme circumstances like a serial killer or serial "manslaughterererer" that involved weapons I guess.

Anyway, just wanted to let you know that I was wrong, there is a way other than bail conditions @ebf



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Drummer. I don't know the dude but have decided he would not be welcome in the same place as me if he had his hands on a firearm or maybe even a rock. The facts are that; He was an executive in the nzda and no doubt pounded home gun safety/ target idendification and whatever as they do. A case of "Do as I say, not as I do?".
He did not shoot the victim as a result of a rebounding bullet or an accidental discharge,
He fired at a target he had not positively identified and that was a deliberate act.
He seems to shown remorse when it would undoudtedly help his case before the Court and his arrogance now is unexcusable, especially by asking the mother of his victim if he had a hunting permit. If he had not would that have made him a legitamite target? Holy Shit, you get a permit from DOC for Aorangis, Tararuas, Rimutukas and share those areas with heaps of others there on the same bloody day.
The question was asked if the NZDA would welcome him back to the fold but so far I can't find a reply anywhere. It would be nice to hear from them and Drummer himself if he has big enough balls to come on the forum and defend himself.

Having your FA license revoked is actually completely different to not having it in the first place

Offences

The following summarises offences under the Arms Act 1983 and the Arms Amendment Act 1992.

dealing in firearms unless a licensed Dealer
selling firearms for a Dealer unless a firearms licenceholder
as a Dealer failing to keep a prescribed transaction register
importing firearms without a Permit to Import
being in possession of a firearm unless licensed
being in possession of an airgun while under the age of 18 years (unless licensed)
failing to produce firearms licence when required by Police
failing to surrender firearms and airguns if licence revoked
failing to advise Police of a change of address
carrying a Pistol or Restricted Weapon beyond the dwellinghouse without specific written authority from Police
failing to give 4 days notice of an intention to remove a Pistol, MSSA or Restricted Weapon from N.Z.
failing to report the destruction, theft, or loss, of a firearm
not supplying name, address, and DOB on demand by Police
not surrendering any airgun or antique firearm when required by Police
altering a firearms licence
using another persons firearms licence
lending a firearms licence for another to use
supplying a firearm or ammunition to an unlicensed person
supplying a firearm or ammunition by mail order unless having specific written approval from Police
supplying an airgun to a person under 18 years of age (unless that person licensed)
supplying a Pistol, Restricted Weapon, or MSSA to a person who does not hold a ‘permit to procure’ that firearm
being in possession of a firearm or imitation firearm except for a lawful, proper and sufficient purpose
being in charge of a firearm or airgun while under the influence of drink or drug
discharging a firearm in or near a dwellinghouse or public place so as to annoy, endanger, or frighten any person.
discharging or carrying a [bolt, flare, spear, net, tranquilizer gun etc.] except for a lawful and proper purpose
being in possession of firearm, antique firearm, or airgun after revocation of licence
unlawful possession of a Pistol, Restricted Weapon, or Military Style Semi Automatic firearm
unlawful carriage or possession of a firearm, airgun, or ammunition in a public place
presenting a firearm, airgun or an object resembling a firearm at another person unless for a lawful purpose
careless use of a firearm or airgun
use or attempted use of a firearm, airgun, imitation firearm or ammunition to resist arrest or commit an offence
carrying a firearm, airgun, imitation firearm, or ammunition with criminal intent
obstructing a member of Police
failing to report injuries caused by firearms
possession of an unsafe firearm (after notice given)

From COLFOs website.

Section 49a of the Arms Act

Unlawful possession of firearm or airgun after revocation of firearms licence

Every person commits an offence and is liable on conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 1 year or to a fine not exceeding $4,000 or to both who, being a person whose firearms licence has been revoked, is in possession of a firearm or airgun at a time when that person is not the holder of a firearms licence, and is not a person authorised, expressly or by implication, by or pursuant to this Act, to be in possession of that firearm or airgun.

Section 49A: inserted, on 1 November 1992, by section 26 of the Arms Amendment Act 1992 (1992 No 95).

Section 49A: amended, on 1 July 2013, by section 413 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 (2011 No 81).

Agree Sidney, except where a person in control of a car or for that matter firearm, in an unfit state, alcohol, drug impaired or using the item in a dangerous manner etc, then the full force of the law should apply and this let em go lightly bullshit should stop. The grieving and harm done to the third party filters a long way and is not repairable and all because some one was intentionally outside of the law in what they were doing!

Originally Posted by Maca49

Agree Sidney, except where a person in control of a car or for that matter firearm, in an unfit state, alcohol, drug impaired or using the item in a dangerous manner etc, then the full force of the law should apply and this let em go lightly bullshit should stop. The grieving and harm done to the third party filters a long way and is not repairable and all because some one was intentionally outside of the law in what they were doing!

What does the "full force of the law" mean? And what would its application actually do for the grieving and harmed, given that the situation is not repairable?

Do you think that slating some sort of vengeance requirement, is a legitimate role for the law to play? Do we now have to sentence people according to how the victims feels appropriate? Is that sort of emotional decision making how we should run a justice system?

I can certainly understand how a person gets to be "intentionally outside of the law" when it comes to alcohol drugs and driving, but it seems to be a little less clear in the case of careless driving perhaps? At what point does misidentification of a target become "acting intentionally outside the law"?

Negligence and intention have the same level of culpabilty? Recklessness is worse or better than negligence? Now should just sentence on outcome perhaps?

Originally Posted by Sidney

What does the "full force of the law" mean? And what would its application actually do for the grieving and harmed, given that the situation is not repairable?

Do you think that slating some sort of vengeance requirement, is a legitimate role for the law to play? Do we now have to sentence people according to how the victims feels appropriate? Is that sort of emotional decision making how we should run a justice system?

I can certainly understand how a person gets to be "intentionally outside of the law" when it comes to alcohol drugs and driving, but it seems to be a little less clear in the case of careless driving perhaps? At what point does misidentification of a target become "acting intentionally outside the law"?

Negligence and intention have the same level of culpabilty? Recklessness is worse or better than negligence? Now should just sentence on outcome perhaps?

Fuck I counted 10 question marks and you gonna be a lawyer

Originally Posted by Dundee

Fuck I counted 10 question marks and you gonna be a lawyer

Bullshit you can't count to ten Dundee, a cow only has four teets

I'd hate to be accused of having all the answers..