Legal Beagle: A (non-)submission on the new Arms Amendment legislation
66 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 Newer→ Last
-
Paul Loch, in reply to
Sir (I assume) I would like to, but due to the speed of this legislation happening I haven’t a chance to even collect my thoughts or gather information. I have spoken to the police twice and they are as confused as I am about the content of proposed legislation or even what action I should be taking. Their (the police’s) last advice is do nothing – we’ll be in contact.
The only reason I even stumbled across this post is I was trying to find out what actions, if any, I should be taking with my firearms.
I would love to spend time reading posts but I also have a job, a family, as well as community commitments.
-
Paul Loch, in reply to
Simon you make some very good points. I am aware of further legislation, perhaps we should have one encompassing reform instead of piecemeal hacks?
To put it in context since the introduction of the E Cat licence in response to the Aramoana massacre in 1990 there have been about 3000 persons gone through quite stringent vetting processes and inspections to operate and legally own Military Style Semi Automatic Weapons. (MSSA).
Although it was not perfect it worked in my opinion. However with budget constraints on non sworn police (which firearms officers usually are) the arms offices were seriously undermanned. This allowed more online transactions which I believe were exploited by the shooter. He then modified his A Cat weapon to an E Cat MSSA without the checks and balances in place.
I understand the shooting community has raised numerous concerns about the lack of control (this is hearsay as I’ve heard it from a number of sources but haven’t researched it) for a while to the police.
Presumably the crackpot fringe do not represent most gun owners, but they do fill a vacuum – one created by decades of silence and indifference. If you want better laws for both gun owners and the wider public, get a much better lobby group to argue for them.
I am forced to revert to an adage that I heard that those “that shout the loudest are normally the least informed”. Name calling doesn’t achieve anything, was unfortunate that the media jumped on if for a good story.
His point about Uzis didn’t really seem to address your average kiwi shooter doesn’t have the same resources as the state of Israel. But I get his point, that if your force someone to give something up they want / need they’ll find another way. Think home made bombs, planes, trucks, cars.
The shooting community are by and large your average kiwi bloke (and a few lasses too) who enjoy the solitude of shooting in isolation or small groups. They generally have that national apathetic “she’ll be right” attitude. They are not your type of person who lobbies or gets on a soap box.
I, like 99.99% of the population, are horrified with the mosque shootings, but honestly don’t think gun legislation is the answer. It will penalise the law abiding owners who respect the law. Do you think the shooter who has so little disregard for life would declare or give up his guns?
It is how to keep the public safe from that 0.01% is the question.
-
andin, in reply to
a job, a family, as well as community commitments.
All that sounds like is you are desperately trying to make out you are the very epitome of normal. Why do I not feel comforted by your protestations hmmm
if your force someone to give something up they want / need they’ll find another way. Think home made bombs, planes, trucks, cars.
That hoary old chestnut again? You been on an NRA public relations course? Or something equally ridiculous. You need to really study up on some actual current psychology and not just mouth Jordan Peterson style bullshit talking points. Used to justify not doing a fucking thing cause the status quo is just the bees knees BAB Wrong!
, but honestly don’t think gun legislation is the answer. It will penalise the law abiding owners who respect the law.
Cue Violins!
One last thing.
an adage that I heard
the media jumped on if for a good story
So your potted third rate homespun wisdom and thinly disguised loathing of the media are supposed to offer more, and out trump everything and everyone else?
I know your trying hard but you are falling well short of what is required a change is needed and sooner rather than later. So go write your submission and there will be another opportunity present it then. -
A page of text to say
Guns don’t kill people, people kill peopleShow some originality. Seriously this NRA talking point has been debunked a thousand times. See also “mentally unwell” and “lone gunman”.
If you want to build an argument for guns then you need to start with data. Not cherry-picked data or massaged statistics, real data.
While you’re doing that we’ll ban your toys that kill people.
-
Umm Some interesting points I'd like to debate.
-
Ian Dalziel, in reply to
Bang Bang
The shooting community are by and large your average kiwi bloke (and a few lasses too) who enjoy the solitude of shooting in isolation or small groups.
...
It is how to keep the public safe from that 0.01% is the question.How indeed? - I draw everyone's attention to:
https://thespinoff.co.nz/society/10-04-2019/swastikas-and-semi-automatics-auckland-gun-club-neighbours-speak-out/This is (of course) the gun club that Paula Bennett officially opened mere days after passing on 13 of the 20 recommendations on gun safety and laws.
(you can find on line evidence of how happy the Gun Lobby was with her performance at the time)
The above article says that 6% of this club's members are policemen and for some reason the locals complaints aren't being heeded by the police - something needs to change there and soon - otherwise we might get the idea that the police are complicit in support for this bully culture.I still feel for the people trying to do the 10-day Vipassana meditation retreat, when they can hear constant rapid fire in the meditation hall - they have been there for 30 years and the gun club are Johnny come latelies who fudged their applications for use (as I understand it) there are fuller articles at Spinoff and elsewhere.
-
andin, in reply to
that 0.01% is the question.
-
Paul Loch, in reply to
you are desperately trying to make out you are the very epitome of normal
I’d say an average New Zealander if there is such a thing.
That hoary old chestnut again?
Yes, oddly enough the truth keeps on resurfacing.
You need to really study up on some actual current psychology
I have thank you: I’ve studied both criminal and terrorist motivations as well as the governments actions to try to understand the actions of al-Qaeda, ISIS, PLO, IRA, RAF to name a few. I could ask you the same question – Have you studied the motivation and history to get the WHY someone would go outside the accepted noms of the law of their country or society? You would perhaps then get the above point that they will use anything at their disposal to hurt their perceived enemy to effect change or bring attention to their cause.
You been on an NRA public relations course?
NRA is a US organization. NZ does not have a NRA – we do not have a multi billion dollar arms industry with a vested interest in sales to fund it. In NZ we have loosely affiliated clubs run by volunteers – hence it is not a strong lobby group. Please do not confuse the US with NZ.
-
andin, in reply to
if there is such a thing.
If your asking I'd say no. Such creatures exist only for statistical purposes. Or to quiet some fear, a way of self identification. Secure in the knowledge they are just like everyone else in habits, interests, and way of living. Create a bubble in which to live. The Chch shooter did this and fooled everyone around him.
truth keeps on resurfacing.
I and dare I say many others dont find anything truthful in it.
their perceived enemy to effect change or bring attention to their cause.
Well dont make them your 'perceived enemy' and try to come to some understanding of their grievance which is always possible on an individual basis, its when it get to large populations that the hurdles are insurmountable sometimes.
Please do not confuse the US with NZ.
It is the same argument they would use and it has been refuted there and the same refutations are still true in NZ.
-
Paul Loch, in reply to
Guns don’t kill people, people kill people
volia – you get it – see my post above.
If you want to build an argument for guns then you need to start with data. Not cherry-picked data or massaged statistics, real data.
cross out for and insert against – you want to build an argument to change the law of this country.
As the custodians of the arms register the NZ Police do not have those stats. Our Firearms law, rightly or wrongly, licensed gun owners not firearms and the mechanism itself has become complacent and needs to change.
While you’re doing that we’ll ban your toys that kill people.
Very democratic and potentially criminalising 250000 NZ firearms owners by badly worded legislation and possibly costing the country millions. Lets get it right.
The whole point of the article is to look at current law, the proposed reforms and make it clear and workable to keep guns out of the hands of the
“mentally unwell” and “lone gunman”.
.
I think we can agree that we have different opinions on how to get there but agree it needs to happen.
-
The whole point of the article is to look at current law, the proposed reforms and make it clear and workable to keep guns out of the hands of the
“mentally unwell” and “lone gunman”.
I think the point is actually much stricter than that, it’s to keep them out of the hands of everyone who does not have a legitimate need for them. Which will, incidentally, help with those two specific problem groups as well. But I think you miss the mark if you think that the general will in NZ is only about those two groups. It’s also against recreational use of such dangerous toys, in light of how few of the “mentally unwell” and “lone gunman” flags went off prior to this massacre. There is no accepted right to own until proven unworthy for them anymore. The burden of proof has shifted to “yes you can have one if you have a genuine reason to possess it”, and the genuine reasons that are acceptable have got a whole lot fewer.
-
andin, in reply to
-
Ian Dalziel, in reply to
The Man with the Golden Gun thinks his reasons are genuine. I dont.
There's something slightly unnerving about this sentence:
"This gun is very special, it's priceless," Xu said from his home in Huapai where he lives with his wife, two children and various stuffed animals he has killed over the years.
I mean killing 'stuffed animals' just seems wrong and did he kill two children?
-
Sacha, in reply to
you want to build an argument to change the law of this country
at least fifty of those recently. game over.
-
Is this right?
"The Government is about to stuff this up in a major way. They've decided the gun buy-back won't include illegal guns.
That's ridiculous.
Why would you buy guns back off legal owners, but not off the owners of illegal weapons? It makes no sense."From here https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12221755
And according to the the journalist, MP's have also screwed up the Euthanasia bill with their laziness.
-
andin, in reply to
The other illegal guns will still be illegal.
I thought they might offer an amnesty from prosecution at least, HDPA is scaremongering a tad. I admit. But getting info is a bit difficult. I might check out Parliament TV tho its like watching paint dry.And I dont know when this debate would be on.
-
linger, in reply to
Why would you buy guns back off legal owners, but not off the owners of illegal weapons? It makes no sense
Well, if those are illegal e.g. by having been stolen, why would you want to provide a way to profit from that crime, or be less inclined to prosecute such offenders?
-
Bart Janssen, in reply to
cross out for and insert against – you want to build an argument to change the law of this country.
You are arguing to possess lethal weapons - the onus is on you to present data. In the absence of data you should not be allowed to possess lethal weapons.
Moreover, the data against is in all the scientific literature and no I won't be your librarian.
Honestly for all your denial that the NRA is not in NZ, ALL your talking points are standard NRA nonsense designed to distract.
-
Bart Janssen, in reply to
Very democratic
You fail to understand what democracy means.
Your 250000, even IF they all opposed this law, which they clearly don't based on press releases by major hunting organisations, they would not outvote the rest of NZ.
That, for good or ill, is what democracy is about - but apparently you don't want to defend democracy.
-
Pete, in reply to
As far back as I can remember there has always been an amnesty on firearms in this country, take any "gun" into your local copshop and they will happily destroy it for you
I've done it myself with a crappy little cheap 22 that I got at an auction for the suppressor and didn't need the rest of it clogging up valuable safe room - only worth about $25 so out she wentLeaving aside the undue haste with which this process has been conducted, those of us who know a little bit about guns (and rifles too) observe that the way the committee have thrown their rope around each category has not been very smart and has lead to
a- several firearms that are not being included that could fall into the "scary black gun" category - after all, we know what y'all are really after is a largely aesthetic decision as you can rapid fire anything if you practice enough
b- several firearms that have been included that fall into the "Grandpappys old popgun" category ie tube mag 22sThis is leading to lot of confusion which is not helpful
Also, the police wish to administer some sort or registration system - there was one before and there is one now - I am on it
All Licensees with endorsements for pistols (B) and formerly semiauto MSSAs (E) and collectors (C) are on it
I have these endorsements and get inspected every few monthsMy point is this - Police so very regularly get things wrong on this register that it has become a standing joke so going on what they are doing now I wouldn't trust the police to run a bigger register in the future (remember INCIS?)
They gave me 2 licenses and I have met people with 5 - other people get someone else's photo on their license, you get the idea
If I had to surrender one license for some crime I could do it and then take the other one and buy as many firearms as my credit card would allowThis is not a well-run system, and please note that before the Chch massacre the police wanted to shift inspections off to a glorified call centre in Paraparaumu, further weakening the system
The only reason John and Jane Citizen should give a shit is it is YOUR tax dollars going to waste and unless they offer a handsome sum for the confiscation planned then you will not get ARs off the streets
This confiscation is going to be expensive if it is to work and there are a LOT of firearms out there - I've only got about 20 and I know people with hundreds
Alternatively they will do it in typical NZ fashion as Peter Jackson put it - "a dollar short and a day late" and it will fail to achieve the objective
Not the sort of thing I would rush but hey, what do I know?
-
andin, in reply to
Police so very regularly get things wrong on this register that it has become a standing joke so going on what they are doing now I wouldn’t trust the police
What happened in CHCH has shaken a lot of people out of their complacency including, I'm sure, the police. They dont want to regarded as a standing joke in this matter anymore.
I know people with hundreds
What of guns? and they are unknown to the police? Are you sure?
-
Sacha, in reply to
the undue haste with which this process has been conducted
We can all keep perfectly calm
-
Pete, in reply to
Yes, I know people who have more than 100 firearms each, at least 4 personally
Predominant group skews older white male and tend to have a lot of hair growing out of their ears and have never had a girlfriend - sounds like some sort of tramping club but seriously they are out there and have always been out there peaceably going about their business- there are a LOT more firearms in this country I reckon than most people think - there's still the odd old WW2 Luger pistol unregistered floating about
The thing about FAL owners that looks dodgy on the surface is that we/they tend towards being secretive because we are worried about being a target for gangs and burglaries - another reason not to trust ol plod with a database
Look there are departments that can do it okish - Internal Affairs with passports run a pretty tight ship IMO
I do not wish to be a shopping list item for some fried up P-head and I do not trust plod to keep my info secure
Please note also that those of us who are lawful police the others somewhat-
I have seized an illegal rifle off a friend and told him to get a license before he can have it back - he hasn't and I've got rid of it now but this is not an unusual incident - I have been asked to referee for someone else and said that they should not have a license
As a community we keep an eye on each otherGo back to the original sin (other than Mr wankface pulling the trigger) - who vetted him, who witnessed for him?
Word I hear is that he didn't take the test in his home town, never got a home safe inspection and his referees gave almost identical statements cos he got them off a chat room
No friends should be a great big warning signI would really like to know if this is true but I am not optimistic that the truth will out in this case
-
Pete, in reply to
There may be no sheep on our farms but there will certainly be a lot of bunnies down South soon
-
Sacha, in reply to
we are worried about being a target for gangs and burglaries – another reason not to trust ol plod with a database
That seems like a fair reservation.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.