i have sent a letter to bennett as well as several others.
be polite but be forceful, point things out but dont threaten.
but give them hell !!!
well I agree with "so we need to make sure our gun laws are tough on gangs and criminals". But have they only worked that one out?
Just sent this to Paula Bennett and copied to Stuart Nash ( the biggest irrational proponent):
I'm writing to you to express my concern about what I see as likely to happen should these changes come to pass and they certainly look like they will. I believe there is some deliberate misrepresentation going on in the public arena to make the proposed changes seem more justifiable. Both the new Police Ass'n president and Stuart Nash have publicly said that currently you do not need to have a Firearms Licence to buy ammunition. This is totally incorrect.
To give some context to my comments, my relevant demographics:
..(hobbies + competitive sport involvement)..
I applaud the move to restrict firearms licences to gang members and gang affiliates. I'm not sure how this would work but the justification seems to be there.
I however see NO justification of further tampering with the law as it stands. In particular, the move to make common sporting semi-automatic rimfire (low powered) rifles and shotguns fit under the E-Cat restrictions. Further, the recording of serial numbers with current owners -volunteering- these at firearms licence renewal will doing absolutely nothing to improve public safety. This is firearms registration by another name. It seems the Inquiry was not able to recognise the hard-won lesson from Canada- tens of millions spent for no result. Unless at database is virtually complete, it has zero value in crime prevention, especially where criminals are concerned.
I will be -seriously- annoyed if these unjustifiable restrictions come to pass. If the current law was properly implemented with appropriate sentences for serious offenders ( eg gang members illegally using firearms), this would be all we need.
The main thing is that you -all- send -something- in and make the protest numbers count
Just a follow-up and curious to know who else got this email today . . . .
Thanks for taking the time to write and provide your feedback on Parliament’s report into firearms.
I’ve got a family full of recreational hunters and fishers so I understand where you are coming from. My focus is on seeing fewer guns in the hands of criminals, and not on unduly burdening responsible firearms owners.
After an initial look at the recommendations I can see several that probably won’t be progressed, but more work needs to be done. We are working through our response over the new few weeks and I will be getting in independent advisors from the hunting and sport shooting community to assist me.
I'll send you an update when we have some progress to report. I do appreciate your feedback and officials are going through the almost 300 emails we’ve received.
Minister of Police
I wonder who these "independent advisors from the hunting and sport shooting community" are. Hopefully none of Chris Cahill's campfire hunting buddies.
Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk
Sent this today to Aunty Paula....Just a note to indicate my concern at the recent firearms committee report into criminal access to firearms..
From my reading of this, it would appear that the committee has neither addressed the purpose for which it was supposedly created nor has it adequately examined the performance of enforcement agencies under the current law.
The police I understand had a considerable amount of input through both their association, and the current administration not all of which was public and that is disturbing in a democracy that requires the police to be both impartial and non-political. For such a standard to be met, any contribution to policy must be subject to public scrutiny.
While the flavour of legal development in this country appears to have moved to account for potential issues before they occur, the impact of regulation on individual freedoms on the law abiding in areas like firearms law and the legitimate choices that we as individuals are able to make, is not an equitable response to a non-existent problem.
More regulation and control is certainly is not a solution when the current environment is more than capable of dealing with any issues that actually exist. Enforcement is the issue, any sociologist will tell you that more regulation will not solve problems in the absence of compliance, and compliance is directly related to the fear of consequences and actually being caught.
This I am sure that you know, so increasing regulation will only increase the cost of enforcement. If that extra regulation does nothing to prevent the problems, they will remain but with added resource requirement and no-one is further ahead.
The solutions if a problem actually exists and to be honest this appears to be entirely unsubstantiated, is to improve enforcement. The current laws are more than sufficient for that purpose, although thought could be given to making criminal offending with a firearm a more serious class of offending.
I appreciate the opportunity to contribute perhaps to your thinking in this area…
Yeah I got the same reply from her too.
Shut up, get out & start pushing!
Guess she just sucked the number 300 out of thin air....our was it the same place the number of stolen guns came from
I see MP Nash on damage control to.
It's on the call to arms thread.