Protesting Confiscation Events

I'm planning on protesting at some of the "buy-back" events and I'm wondering if anyone else is.

I should be at most of the Auckland events, and I'd like to see you out there.

I'll be wearing an orange t-shirt I had printed with "MY RIGHTS AREN'T FOR SALE" on the front and "BOYCOTT THE BUY-BACK" on the back of it.

It's important that we are seen and heard, so this can't be spun as something we are in any way okay with.

Unless you have pressing business, this is the most important thing you can be doing at the moment.

This is your opportunity to make a much bigger difference than you can by posting stuff online.

Just find where and when the collection events are in your area and come on down.

Now is the time for action, not excuses. I don't want to hear about how you can't or shouldn't protest.

Now is the time to nut up or shut up. I'll see you there.

If I make it to New Zealand before this is all over I am always up for a peaceful march and protest. Happy to join in.

That’s awesome mate.... kinoath!!!!!

Any more t shirts or can you post a pic so i can get one made

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Martin358

Any more t shirts or can you post a pic so i can get one made

---

Here you go:

https://thekiwigunguy.secure-decorat...E-1?n=11393547

Normally, when you list an item on your webstore they add an 11% markup for you.
I'm not interested in making money off this so I've set it to 0%, so that's as cheap as I can get the t-shirts.

How about a statement which is less divisive: "NOT SAFER" "GANGS NOT HERE"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cordite

How about a statement which is less divisive: "NOT SAFER" "GANGS NOT HERE"

---

No offence, but that's kind of a vague statement.
To the casual observer, what does that have to do with the "buy-back" events?
Now really isn't the time to be softening our message.
Look where that has gotten us so far...

You might want to consider changing your front slogan to "My privileges are not for sale"

Owning a firearm in NZ is not a right. This is not America,,,

Personally, I dont think that stance will get you very far. Put the back slogan on the front, or mention something directly about missing items on the list, or "70% not fair" etc. That will get you much further IMHO...

Can you show me where it is written in law, this privilege you speak of @ebf?

Someone else on here mentioned ' WE ARE NOT HIM" or words to that effect.

Just get a deeply ironic short like this

Much less controversial

https://m.aliexpress.com/item/330361...A1563099595022

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasquatch

Can you show me where it is written in law, this privilege you speak of @ebf?

---

Sasquatch / ebf the debate about whether obtaining a firearms license in New Zealand is a right or a privilege to me pivots on interpretation of the Arms Act clause below.

24. Issue of firearms licence
(1). Subject to subsection (2), a firearms licence shall be issued if the member of the Police to whom the application is made is satisfied that the applicant—
(a). is of or over the age of 16 years; and
(b) is a fit and proper person to be in possession of a firearm or airgun.

I have always contended that it is a privilege to have a firearms license in New Zealand but many read the words “shall be issued” and interpret them to imply a right. I can absolutely understand how those that hold this view arrive at that conclusion. I hold my view because the way I interpret the clause is that being issued an FAL is not an inalienable right as it has conditions (in that you must be of a certain age and be fit and proper). This debate will continue forever because to me each individual’s interpretation is subjective.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Russian 22.

Just get a deeply ironic short like this

Much less controversial

https://m.aliexpress.com/item/330361...A1563099595022

---

that would ruffle a few feathers i like grand theft semi auto myself

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasquatch

Can you show me where it is written in law, this privilege you speak of @ebf?

---

Sasquatch, if it was an inalienable right (ala Mruka) we would not be having this discussion... :P

If you can point me to such a "right" in the Arms Act or the Interpretation Act, I will eat my gnome hat :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ebf

If you can point me to such a "right" in the Arms Act or the Interpretation Act, I will eat my gnome hat :D

---

Toby shoot fund raiser right there! I’d pay to watch that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ebf

Sasquatch, if it was an inalienable right (ala Mruka) we would not be having this discussion... :P
If you can point me to such a "right" in the Arms Act or the Interpretation Act, I will eat my gnome hat :D

---

I think it goes to something a lot more fundamental and so obvious we don't even see it, namely (warning: controversial) our inalienable right to self defense.

Even American 2nd amendment proponents will admit the 2nd amendment of their constitution did not institute the right to bear arms, but rather recognised the pre-existing right, i.e. it stated the right "should not be taken away" rather than their founders inventing a brand new right (don't ask me to quote exactly).

Without weapons/arms etc. only the strong (mainly men) have the prerogative of self defense, weapons are in effect the great leveller.

Disclaimer: I own my weapons for fun, not for self defense, but the above I do hold to be self-evident.



On a little sub edit, the right of self defense is not self-evident to US justice, heard of someone getting done for resisting arrest insofar that he insisted on holding up his hands to cover his head as the police baton strikes came raining down...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ebf

Sasquatch, if it was an inalienable right (ala Mruka) we would not be having this discussion... :P

If you can point me to such a "right" in the Arms Act or the Interpretation Act, I will eat my gnome hat :D

---

I’ll find it for you tomorrow!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rushy

I hold my view because the way I interpret the clause is that being issued an FAL is not an inalienable right as it has conditions

---

It is an interesting one, many of what we consider basic human rights are also conditional and not inalienable in our society, with the government assuming the power to deny certain rights as they see fit.


For example, freedom of movement is generally considered a basic human right but the authorities will deny that right (by imprisonment etc) if they decide you don't deserve it. The right to participate in government and free elections depends on you being old enough to vote. You could run through the whole list of 'basic human rights' and come up with similar conditions for many of them.

This page: The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (abbreviated) lists "Freedom from State or Personal Interference in the above Rights" as the 30th basic human right, which is a tad ironic given the way governments generally seem to consider it their job to administrate (aka interfere with) peoples rights.

So that reasoning doesn't really distinguish one conditional right/privilege from another apart from the level of qualification to keep or lose it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cordite

I think it goes to something a lot more fundamental and so obvious we don't even see it, namely (warning: controversial) our inalienable right to self defense.

Even American 2nd amendment proponents will admit the 2nd amendment of their constitution did not institute the right to bear arms, but rather recognised the pre-existing right, i.e. it stated the right "should not be taken away" rather than their founders inventing a brand new right (don't ask me to quote exactly).

Without weapons/arms etc. only the strong (mainly men) have the prerogative of self defense, weapons are in effect the great leveller.

Disclaimer: I own my weapons for fun, not for self defense, but the above I do hold to be self-evident.

---

There was substantial debate among the founding fathers in regards to the Bill of Rights. The US Constitution essentially spelled out the various limits and checks and balances placed on government but came up a bit short in regards to the citizens. Some of the founding fathers considered these inalienable rights to be self evident but others disagreed in that over time, tyranny would always try to reassert itself so best to add them to the Constitution and put them in stone. Although the 1st and 2nd Amendments are ones often referenced some of my favorites are the 9th and 10th Amendments.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ebf

Sasquatch, if it was an inalienable right (ala Mruka) we would not be having this discussion... :P

If you can point me to such a "right" in the Arms Act or the Interpretation Act, I will eat my gnome hat :D

---

Firearms ownership is listed as a right in the English Bill of Rights Act 1689, which predates the Second Amendment by 100 years and still carries weight of law here.
The Bill of Rights Act was last invoked here(successfully, I might add) in the 1970s.

Also, the very concept of a human right precludes a government giving it to its people.
Human rights just exist. They always have and they always will. All governments can do is choose whether or not to recognise and respect them.
There is absolutely nothing any government can do to make a human right cease to exist.

Also, according to the US Supreme Court, the Second Amendment is subject to "reasonable restrictions." We have Antonin Scalia to thank for that.
There is no definition of what is and isn't a "reasonable restriction," so that is the excuse local, state, and federal government agencies use to fuck people over all the time.
There are millions of people who have to fight each and every day just to maintain what rights they have left, and even then bad laws and regulations still get passed

Will you be having sauce with that gnome hat @ebf ? [emoji16]

Sent from my S60 using Tapatalk

In regard to the right to use reasonable force in self defense (so far no disagreements across the board), I submit that if you are deprived of the reasonable means of EFFECTIVE self defense you are in effect deprived of your right to reasonable self defense.

Self defense must by its nature be effective, or it is just a gesture of self defense (like screaming no no to a determined rapist, so that he can be charged in court later, if he does not strangle his victim and only witness in between).

This means I cannot erect a water cooled machine gun nest on my roof. Whether you can be deprived of semi-automatics, to be reasonable you would have to look at the self defense environment and see if a semi is proportional to the threat, but then there are other uses of semis. I suspect not, as no criminal would take on a home invasion if they thought the inhabitant had "just" a semi auto .22LR at hand. Any bang stick would do. The other issue is out and about rather than home self-defense and here we have the issue of hand guns. In other words, as much as I disagree with the Government's decision, semi confiscation does not impact on anyones right to effective self-defense.

@veitnamcam, still waiting for a direct answer Cam...

Pointing at ancient English laws and US laws does not quite cut it in terms of the NZ situation.

I'll even be very generous and include the NZ Bill of Rights Act 1990.

If someone can show me these rights in there, I guess I'll be asking Dundee for a large bottle of Watties :P

@ebf

In response to your generosity - I'll start with the low-hanging fruit of the 1990 Act

New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 / #26:

Retroactive penalties and double jeopardy

(1)No one shall be liable to conviction of any offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute an offence by such person under the law of New Zealand at the time it occurred.

(2)No one who has been finally acquitted or convicted of, or pardoned for, an offence shall be tried or punished for it again.

So:

1. Is the forcible confiscation of firearms not a retroactive penalty?

2. How can we be legally subject to an amnesty (which by its very definition is only applicable to criminals) when purchase and possession of firearms was not "an offence by such person under the law of New Zealand at the time it occurred"?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ebf

Pointing at ancient English laws and US laws does not quite cut it in terms of the NZ situation.

---

Well; since the Treaty Of Waitangi is only valid because of English law (remember the Crown... with whom the Treaty was agreed under English law...) we can't cherry-pick applicability of said English law & precedent, and on the one hand say the TOW has total legal enforceable validity 150+ years later, yeah verily even unto radio spectrum and special Parliamentary seats etc., so forth - but other English law is not relevant at all, no sirree, nothing to see here. move along...

@ebf, reverse that onus of proof and show us where it says it's a privilege.

If we accept that it's a human right - albeit one that's not recognised in NZ law - yet the law simultaneously stops short of explicitly calling it a privilege, what is it? Sounds like it's a grey area, legally speaking. Perhaps "conditional entitlement" describes it better?

Certainly the police's mantra is "privilege not a right". Although, given the evident ease at which privileges can be taken away, I'm not sure that parroting it on their behalf is particularly helpful.

@sightpicture

you are talking about the new laws (prohibited firearms), not the original item under discussion (right to own firearms).

pretty sure there will be legal challenges to some (or all) of the new laws. if any of that includes a defense of "right to bear arms" I would be very surprised if it got anywhere in NZ

i suspect the courts will point out that the counter argument to point 1 would be the payment offered for those items.

point 2 is a meaningless argument, the law has changed, the amnesty is an acknoledgement that people are now on the "wrong side" of the law through no fault of their own. amnesties after law changes are not new... so i'm not really sure what the point is you are trying to make there.

@PommyMcPomFace, "parroting it on their behalf" REALLY ?!?

there are very specific rights - go read the NZ Bill of Rights Act

If you want to argue about implied rights, good luck with convincing the courts in NZ that you have a case :P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rushy

Sasquatch / ebf the debate about whether obtaining a firearms license in New Zealand is a right or a privilege to me pivots on interpretation of the Arms Act clause below.

24. Issue of firearms licence
(1). Subject to subsection (2), a firearms licence shall be issued if the member of the Police to whom the application is made is satisfied that the applicant—
(a). is of or over the age of 16 years; and
(b) is a fit and proper person to be in possession of a firearm or airgun.

I have always contended that it is a privilege to have a firearms license in New Zealand but many read the words “shall be issued” and interpret them to imply a right. I can absolutely understand how those that hold this view arrive at that conclusion. I hold my view because the way I interpret the clause is that being issued an FAL is not an inalienable right as it has conditions (in that you must be of a certain age and be fit and proper). This debate will continue forever because to me each individual’s interpretation is subjective.

---

Thank you Rushy. In English law, Shall does not refer to the future. It can be paraphrased as "has the duty to" and refers only to capable subjects (meaning, Lessor, or Buyer shall do something, but not Property or Product shall). (Must refers to the duty to perform of inanimate subjects (like the product or the property)). With this legal (not 'civilian') language interpreted, a right is not invoked but a duty is. I.e. the police have to issue a firearm to all those people who satisfy 1 & 2. If the police disagree, next step is a courtroom if the prospective fit and proper person wishes to invoke the law to have the police perform their duty. Differences like this fund lawyers' Maseratis.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ebf

@sightpicture

you are talking about the new laws (prohibited firearms), not the original item under discussion (right to own firearms).

---

I have addressed that separately just above, thanks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ebf

@sightpictureso i'm not really sure what the point is you are trying to make there.

---

The point is the NZ Bill of Rights does not permit criminalization for following previous law. Only criminals are granted amnesty. Q.E.D.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ebf

@PommyMcPomFace, "parroting it on their behalf" REALLY ?!?

there are very specific rights - go read the NZ Bill of Rights Act

If you want to argue about implied rights, good luck with convincing the courts in NZ that you have a case :P

---

Not trying to change anything. There's people that call it a right, there's people that call it a privilege. I argue that functionally, it sits somewhere in the middle as it's not really defined as either.

Which means that yes, I think the phrase "privilege not a right" is quite unhelpful, because a) it confers less protection than the alternatives and b) legally might not be the case.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cordite

In regard to the right to use reasonable force in self defense (so far no disagreements across the board), I submit that if you are deprived of the reasonable means of EFFECTIVE self defense you are in effect deprived of your right to reasonable self defense.

Self defense must by its nature be effective, or it is just a gesture of self defense (like screaming no no to a determined rapist, so that he can be charged in court later, if he does not strangle his victim and only witness in between).

This means I cannot erect a water cooled machine gun nest on my roof. Whether you can be deprived of semi-automatics, to be reasonable you would have to look at the self defense environment and see if a semi is proportional to the threat, but then there are other uses of semis. I suspect not, as no criminal would take on a home invasion if they thought the inhabitant had "just" a semi auto .22LR at hand. Any bang stick would do. The other issue is out and about rather than home self-defense and here we have the issue of hand guns. In other words, as much as I disagree with the Government's decision, semi confiscation does not impact on anyones right to effective self-defense.

---

I've never understood this thing of having to have proportional self defense tools to the attacker, such as if the attacker has a bolt action, you cannot take them on with anything other than a bolt action. Or if they come at you with a hammer you've got to put your gun down and run around with them chasing you to find a hammer and then engage in hammer to hammer combat.

All this stuff is nonsense people sitting behind a desk come up with that have never been in a fight. If you get into a fight for your life, assuming you miss the pre attack indicators, it's going to go down very fast, sometimes in less than a second and you will need to employ every advantage you have to win.

Guns are the great equalizer for all. The ladies, the weak, the old, etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PommyMcPomFace

@ebf, reverse that onus of proof and show us where it says it's a privilege.

If we accept that it's a human right - albeit one that's not recognised in NZ law - yet the law simultaneously stops short of explicitly calling it a privilege, what is it? Sounds like it's a grey area, legally speaking. Perhaps "conditional entitlement" describes it better?

Certainly the police's mantra is "privilege not a right". Although, given the evident ease at which privileges can be taken away, I'm not sure that parroting it on their behalf is particularly helpful.

---

Well I have an interesting question. Where exactly is it enshrined in law that the police have either a right or a privilege to possess firearms? Police seem to have a lot of mantras going on these days so I am wondering where exactly their standing is for the same things.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ebf

@veitnamcam, still waiting for a direct answer Cam...
Pointing at ancient English laws and US laws does not quite cut it in terms of the NZ situation.
I'll even be very generous and include the NZ Bill of Rights Act 1990.
If someone can show me these rights in there, I guess I'll be asking Dundee for a large bottle of Watties :P

---

The NZ Bill of Rights 1990 does not abrogate any pre-existing right by failing to mention it. Because something is ancient, is it necessarily invalid?

"28 Other rights and freedoms not affected
An existing right or freedom shall not be held to be abrogated or restricted by reason only that the right or freedom is not included in this Bill of Rights or is included only in part."

The NZ bill of rights of course does not mention the right to self defense, just the underlying rights and freedom from being deprived of life and from being tortured etc. But again, the omission clearly does not imply abrogation as wisely stated by the lawmakers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wanneroo

I've never understood this thing of having to have proportional self defense tools to the attacker, such as if the attacker has a bolt action, you cannot take them on with anything other than a bolt action. Or if they come at you with a hammer you've got to put your gun down and run around with them chasing you to find a hammer and then engage in hammer to hammer combat.
All this stuff is nonsense people sitting behind a desk come up with that have never been in a fight. If you get into a fight for your life, assuming you miss the pre attack indicators, it's going to go down very fast, sometimes in less than a second and you will need to employ every advantage you have to win.

---

Agree, and I think the courts will too.

The unreasonable force is often coming in when the immediate danger to your life and body has passed - kicking someone on the ground, for example.

One other option to self defense may be said to be running away. But even though you might be the school champ at running, your attacker might be the regional champ at running, it is not a guaranteed way out therefore. Your attacker similarly may have "only" a hammer but like you say, you can't go looking for a hammer, and anyway he may be younger and stronger than you and he may be on P, (burglars are more likely than not to be drug addicts, be very careful). Potentially lethal force of a hammer or screwdriver is reasonably met by potentially lethal force of a firearm. Every situation is different and you'd definitely need a good lawyer and keep your mouth shut if/when police interview you (never to your advantage to talk, whether guilty or innocent, irrespective of what they'll tell you) --- but far far better to avoid shooting someone as that will help you sleep better for the rest of your life.

So burglar proof your house, consider CCTV with recording, security lights, stay friends with neighbours who can watch your house, avoid bushes up against your house itself, and don't build tall fences as burglars just LOVE your bloody stoopid "PRIvacy".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wanneroo

I've never understood this thing of having to have proportional self defense tools to the attacker, such as if the attacker has a bolt action, you cannot take them on with anything other than a bolt action. Or if they come at you with a hammer you've got to put your gun down and run around with them chasing you to find a hammer and then engage in hammer to hammer combat.

---

There's a case a few years back where a policeman shot and killed a man approaching him with a hammer. From memory the case was in favor of reasonable force used for self defense.