Hi Team
So...........
Richard Lincoln has recently become a lawyer. As someone who knows him I can only speak of his passion which many will know anyway.
Contact Richard on: 0211525527 or you can email him on: rlincoln@cit.net.nz
Printable View
Hi Team
So...........
Richard Lincoln has recently become a lawyer. As someone who knows him I can only speak of his passion which many will know anyway.
Contact Richard on: 0211525527 or you can email him on: rlincoln@cit.net.nz
The Lincoln lawyer?
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xU4ReVEemN0
:-)
The crooked law society of NZ have shafted him. We need him back. He is a great advocate for our hobby.
Here is a link to a Give a little page to help him appeal the decision. Every dollar will count even the smallest donation.
https://givealittle.co.nz/cause/fire...4PRX3L6V4YhZ8I
Hmmm... Richard's history back to 1994 is coming back haunt him it seems.
I can certainly think of worse individuals who were admitted to the bar.
Are we to take it that you consider anyone who challenges the police position, a loose cannon?
The police position being that they can make up the law as they see fit!
As an aside, I note that Clint Rickard was accepted as a fit and proper person to join their esteemed ranks.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/a...ectid=10542846
The part I find most concerning is everybody makes mistakes, we are not perfect. But in regards to Lincolns case especially, his are rather trivial to consider him not "fit & proper" to practise law.
He probably doesn't shake hands properly and is "uninitiated" to the justice fraternity.
Well, you are right there in so much as we only know what "good" is because we can compare it to "evil". Accordingly, his past behaviour gives perspective to the Law Society and Court to what rational and professional actually means. Hence his exclusion.
It is a poor reason to support him simply because he is a gun advocate.
And Clint fits FFS, I wouldn't want him in practice with my daughter!!!
I guess when you take the cops to court and win, it gives them good reason to go after you?
clint rickards ,barry hart both spring to mind as outstanding examples of ho hum legal beagles.jesus wept karen soich was mistress of terry clark mr asia and she was readmitted to the NZ bar and looka t the numerous bastrds with fat arses warming the seats of the big sheepshed in wellington..not a week goes past without one of em being up before the old beak for dippin fingers in the trust a/c etcetc. yup lincoln may well have been a little left of centre in some actions ,but against the named mob id venture to say hes pretty fucking tame!
stil llaw societies are just that ,a law unto themselves ,and lets face it its commonknowledge both lawyers nad accountants use their personalities as contraception.
I hear here some good argument about why certain people should not have been admitted in the past. Which to me simply adds weight to why Lincoln ought not be now, not that he should be.
Never heard of the bloke, but he sounds like quite a vindictive character. What he did to that constable’s wife was a low blow. It’d be good to have more firearms advocates in the profession, but you can’t slap your blinkers on and ignore his past because of your support for that.
"Lincoln then filed a private prosecution against the senior constable alleging several crimes including aggravated assault, kidnapping and perverting the course of justice.
The District Court declined to accept the filing of the charges saying Lincoln was using the criminal law to extract revenge."
Oh dear! Law is NEVER vindictive...
But should maybe have left it at the failed prosecution. Reading about the toilet case incl the judgment, there was some really bad behaviour and intransigent stupidity going on, and in the main not by Mr Lincoln.
Exactly. What would you do @ebf? I'm interested to know how you'd apply your tiny amount of common sense in this scenario? ;-)
@Sasquatch, the law is grey. It is not the black and white of Mr Lincoln's world.
In the majority of cases the judges take the view of "what would a reasonable person do".
So, it today's day and age, a reasonable person would NOT carry an uncovered "black" rifle in public, because they would know that it is extremely likely to cause alarm and distress... Or maybe they would if they are trying to cause an incident...
To answer your question directly, what would I do ? Ensure that the firearm is made in-operable, by removing the bolt or securing a trigger lock. Cover it or make sure it is not visible. Lock the vehicle, and go pee, pay for fuel or do whatever. I will not be away from the vehicle for extended periods, I will try to park it in a secure, visible area, etc.
Not 100% sure on that.
Have been informed recently that there will be clarification from the police in time on this.
As it was explained and I understand it, a firearm will be able to be left unattended in a vehicle if said firearm is locked to the vehicle.
Not sure if there will be a time-limit etc but have been told it is in the works.
Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk
Yes but I asked what YOU would do in that scenario? Because if it's leaving said "black" rifle in your car unattended, then technically you just broke the law. People have been prosecuted for doing this - regardless of what rifle's gender identity is.
Do you think it would of made a difference if it wasn't a "black" rifle? What about a bog standard Tikka T3? Would you be more inclined to walk it into the toilet then?
I think you replied and quoted while I was still adding to my post :-)
To answer your question directly, what would I do ? Ensure that the firearm is made in-operable, by removing the bolt or securing a trigger lock. Cover it or make sure it is not visible. Lock the vehicle, and go pee, pay for fuel or do whatever. I will not be away from the vehicle for extended periods, I will try to park it in a secure, visible area, etc.
All good. That is a sensible thing to do but unfortunately, as it stand's you could be charged with an offense depending on who you got, which frankly IMO, isn't good enough. I'm not saying what you'd do is wrong, because i believe it's not - But this "grey" area needs to be cleaned up in the act.
I hope @R93 is right and that at least what is common police practise (firearms locked in vehicles) would be granted for us civvies.
Bullshit!
Police cannot clarify anything. There has to be a change to the legislation.
We are all breaking the law when we leave a firearm in a vehicle. We do it because we are too afraid to comply with the law, and we know that the armed thugs in our police force can shoot us down with impunity to enforce their "grey policy", should we risk carrying a firearm in public.
Richard Lincoln was risking his life to obey the law, and was fortunate enough not to be shot while armed gun-thugs held him at gunpoint when they stopped him on the Queens highway. Having a firearm shoved in your face for obeying the law.
Police involved should be charged with presenting a firearm, and threatening to kill.
While the Arms act doesn't apply to police, the penalties in the Crimes act certainly do!
To strike a conciliatory tone, perhaps bring the rifle to the toilet but it in a case -- no law mandating a case however, but, like you say, common sense. I do recall a recent instance of AOS holding someone up at gunpoint, threatening his life, for having walked along the road with a gun in a case, you are nowhere safe from stupidity I'm afraid.
I have on at least one occasion had to visit the public toilet late at night and brought a bolt action with me from the car, over shoulder, not in case. Felt uncomfortable doing it, but as they say, in and out, dark, no-one around and back in car and off before any stupid calls could be made, law obeyed. I'm obviously not going to get accepted by the Christchurch Law Society either... but then again I don't have a law degree.
Sorry! I didn't realise I had to clarify how law is changed in this country on a forum consisting of mostly intelligent people.
I will take it under advisement in future.[emoji16]
I/we heard it in a forum that has a vested interest in the act.
Also relayed by someone who deals with police and politicians every day.
Not even saying it will happen. Just that there is a push from police to clarify it.
I would also ask before you accuse police of presenting a firearm and threatening to kill, learn what an ROE is.
Might help with your understanding of situations like Lincoln found himself in.
Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk
So what DOES it mean when someone with a uniform points a gun at you? Is it not someone presenting a firearm and making an unmistakable threat to your life? The police ROE is surely not law, so should be open to the challenge of law. Gutless Law Society maybe not wishing to rock the boat, fair enough, but checks and balances my sphincter.
How many people have been charged with leaving a gun unattended in a car while paying for gas or having a piss?
As opposed to those who leave machine guns in their car overnight outside a motel and have them stolen, shotguns in the back of the ute most of the evening in the pub carpark after duck shooting and have them stolen, or left permanently in the boot of the car because they can't be arsed putting them away properly and have them stolen.
congratsR93-commonsense applied
JWB take a deep breath
look in the mirror
give yourself 6 bloody good swift uppercuts
then
slow
slow
sloowly
say
WTF WAS I THINKING??????????
hers me thinking you were an intelligent sort of cove
seems in this case I was that far out buses dont even fucking run there!
I hear what you are saying, and I agree completely. The problem identified here however is the law, about having laws that make sense. It is desirable to not have to rely on police discretion for our personal safety from prosecution and conviction when acting reasonably. Richard Lincoln acted unreasonably by following current law. Ain't good.
You appear to agree it does mean the cops presented a firearm and threatened his life. And he should expect that for being a law abiding firearms owner and the police become involved with that, for whatever reason of worried phone calls they happen to receive.
Saying that... he should maybe have expected it if he set out to deliberately provoke a showdown with police over a poorly conceived law. Is that scenario remotely possible given his litigious bent (as lawyers do have, not singling him out) mixed with his political activism? I don't know the guy, I just read and try to fathom him. Surely he owned a soft case then, and any case he had could have readily accommodated his little black gun.