Thread: Protesting Confiscation Events

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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".

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.