Another source for Police charged with offences
https://fyi.org.nz/request/79/respon...m%20Mellor.pdf
Printable View
Another source for Police charged with offences
https://fyi.org.nz/request/79/respon...m%20Mellor.pdf
I suggest we just all copy and paste to our relevent MPs and choke their in boxes, get this message across For Clutha / Southland send to
Samantha.Price@parliament.govt.nz
Todd Barclays PA
This is what could happen - an example from South Africa:
http://www.nzhuntingandshooting.co.n...tml#post583566
I have received a response to my email from the secretary of David Seymour - ACT Party.
It looks like it is only NZ First and ACT who publicly support firearm owners.
Make sure you let your representatives know who you will be supporting in the upcoming elections.
"Dear Koshogi
*
On behalf of David Seymour thanks you for the below email regarding Law and Order Select Committee.
*
David recognises that the firearm proposals made by the Law and Order Select Committee go far beyond targeting illegal gun possession. These proposals would punish responsible firearm owners for the actions of a criminal minority.
*
ACT was not represented on this committee but if a bill is put forward reflecting these ideas, ACT will oppose it.
*
Kind regards
*
Nicole Wood | Senior Private Secretary, Office of David Seymour"
Test.
edit: I had to write the above in order to be able to view page 3 of this thread. Clicking on the "3" or last page icon kept taking me to the NZHS landing page.
I'm surprised systolic hasn't popped up on this thread to tell us the only responsible thing to do is to bend over and take whatever the police want to give us. :wtfsmilie:
@Savage1 showing that the Police database is not secure because unfortunately some Police or Police staff (like all professions) are not honest and have/may used the police database for criminal means. Yes they would probably be caught, but the data would be out there. I realise the link posted did not state the offences, but it shows that not even the Police are able to stop their own people from acting in a criminal manner.
No database anywhere is secure, ever.
Reply from Stuart Nash to me. Probably the same cut and paste seen by many? At least I got a reply but it failed to answer any question asked in my own shamelessly cut and paste (Stug) letter.
Dear James,
Thanks very much for your email.
First of all, you are right when you say that the Select Committee inquiry focus was on how criminals are accessing firearms (title of the inquiry was 'Inquiry into Issues Relating to the Illegal Possession of Firearms in New Zealand'), but as part of the inquiry, we also investigated ways that made it harder for criminals and gangs to access firearms.
The terms of reference for the inquiry were:
· How widespread firearm possession is amongst criminals, including gangs
· How criminals, gangs and those who do not have a licence come into the possession of firearms
· What changes, if any, to the current situation may further restrict the flow of firearms to criminals, gangs, and those who do not have a licence.
The committee did note that the vast majority of firearms users in New Zealand are law-abiding, and we did not wish to impose any form of unreasonable cost or impost on them at all.
We received 99 submissions; including from Central North Island Club, Bruce Rifle Club, Council of Licensed Forearms Owners, Greater Wgtn Muzzle-loading club, Firearms Safety Specialist NZ, Mountain Safety Council, Paul Clark, Pistol NZ, Rural Women NZ, Sporting shooter association of NZ, NZ Customs, etc etc, so we had a wide and varied range of opinions and views.
There were 20 recommendations as outlined in the Committee’s report in the link below:-
https://www.parliament.nz/resource/e...6269b2427510b9
The process from here is that NZ Police has received a copy of the Select Committee’s report, and they will write a further report containing their own recommendations for the Minister.
The Minister must then decide what to do with it and what, if any, recommendations she decides to pursue.
If law changes are required as a result of any recommendations the Minister accepts, these will have to go through the full consultation process and members of the public will have an opportunity to submit their views at this point in time.
It is my expectation that NZ Police will consult and work in partnership with the representatives of gun owners to ensure that what is finally recommended is sensible and achievable and does not impose undue cost or restrictions on law-abiding citizens.
Thanks
Stuart
Oh shit I knew I shouldn't have registered my serial numbers and gun details when the officer asked. I invested a lot of time and effort into my collection.
Now I have to live my life expecting gang members to come to my house and try pinch them.
Any one can import an MSSA, in parts, don't try and make out that the statement is incorrect.
Just because crime is at a "low" doesn't mean that it's not a problem or that there isn't going to be a problem, I'm actually finding there are more armed offenders out there, especially in the last 12 months, but this could just be regional, but there is a major problem.
The problem is that any person can import the parts to assemble a MSSA or buy up a-cat firearms and onsell them to anyone without any kind of trail. The Police assosiation example involving the head hunter is a perfect example, he hasn't been prosecuted as there is proof that he supplied to unlicenced people.
In the last six months I've been involved in two incidents where guns were pointed at frontline police, one incident shots were fired and it was a MSSA.
Just because something is an offence doesn't mean that it's a deterrent, just like speeding, lots of people speed on open roads, put a speed camera out there (a way of being caught) and they stop.
The PA presentation was reffering to too many firearms in the wrong hands, not in general.
1) Yes possession of ammunition by a non-FAL holder is already an offence, I'm unsure why he thinks otherwise but is a very minor issue here.
2)3)4) Agreed, not really needed.
5) I disagree with this as well, too much hassle. I'd rather a compulsory notification sent to Police via e-form or similar. It's not about whether a criminal would obtain a p2p, it's that the FAL holder wouldn't sell to a person without one as they could be traced.
6) they haven't defined what the new category would involve here so speculation can go both ways, it does need some kind of change to make less open to interpretation.
7)prohibition orders would stop people using them under someone elses supervision which isn't an offence and would remove any defence for having one, great idea for certain people.
8)fit and proper is subjective to the police, that is in law, so if they decide to put it in a code book then it is arguable whether it is law or not. Sure it can be challenged in the courts but anything can be. Your argument is irrelevant to the point.
9)stops muppets from intantly applying, getting turned down and dragging it through the courts. But agreed it's not really needed.
10) It's the courts that decided that being a gangmember alone isn't reason enough not to be considered fit and proper. Police are bound by the courts decision so your whole argument is unfounded.
11) I actually think this is ok, they're already recording B C E cat weapons and it appears to be effective, sure there are negatives but there are certainly positives as well, the main one being the deterrence of on-selling to non FAL holders.
12)Judges can't just dish out maximum sentences cumulatively whenever they like, they're bound by legislation and are also open to appeal. To increase the penalties would give the judges more freedom to give bigger sentences. it's much easier to give 2yrs imprisonment on a 10yr max penalty that a 2yr max penalty.
13) selling firearms to unlicenced people?
14) Who cares what section it is, that's erroneous. This is a great submission, financial burden? Do you expect them to spec bank safes? more likely BCE standards or less.
15)there is nothing to say an endorsenment can't be issued until there is suitable storage arangements, this would remove that.
16)Do you really have a problem with random inspections? I see no end of unsecured firearms by some great and generally responsible people, so many get stolen from unlocked safes too. It's hardly like your house is going to be searched whilst you're put in plasticuffs and are not free to leave. If all people were reasonable this kind of thing wouldn't need to be law.
17)actually it's the police who decides who is fit and proper so it's up to them to revoke FALs, it's in the arms act.
You talk about effective enforcement however the problem is that the Police aren't able to enforce some of the current laws because of easy defences and lack of accountability of FAL holders for the whereabouts of their firearms. Have you ever investigated a burglary? If so you'd know just how notoriously hard they are to solve due to lack of evidence, and if this is how FAs are mainly obtained then increasing security should be first priority. Preaching about Police needing to solve more burglaries is just easy scapegoating.
Not all people that're vetted 'fit and proper' are 'fit and proper'
I'm not against you at all, just trying to add a bit of perspective and play devils advocate.