Printable View
Think I have finally worked out why the trademe license glitch happens
Basically it always pops up saying your firearms licence number is invalid etc etc when using my smartphone app.
First it seems you.must type in capitals
2nd is every now and then it puts a space after your licence or name, you cant obviously see this but if you click back into the licence number field you will notice, if you don't remove this mystery space it wont work
Hopefully saves others some frustration
yup the invisible space has caught me out before too :yuush:
It also says,"middle name optional"don't be fooled,must be zacery as the fal.
Please forward all your personal firearms details to Trademe correctly as it helps police build their case for universal registration.
When selling your firearms, never arrange to do it face to face. Always use the illegal police 43a form and correctly fill out all the blank spaces. This is the main evidence that police will take to their minister as proof that the majority of licence holders have no objection to police recording a list of firearms they own or sell.
Do your bit to help the police with their campaign to make NZ a safer place. Even though you are helping police with their illegal actions as well as an abuse of their budget, you may be assured that it is for a higher cause. When firearms are removed from legal ownership, you can be proud of your part in making NZ a safer place
Left my tinfoil hat at home sorry
You don't believe they have agenda?:ORLY:Quote:
Originally Posted by PerazziSC3
Quote:
Originally Posted by JWB
Firearm registration was considered too expensive to be worth it even right after Aeroma at the height of calls for gun control and when emotions were at their highest. It aint gonna happen now after three decades of no mass shootings.
Calling the 43a form illegal is retarded, this isn't 'Merica, you have no right to own firearms and mail order forms are the law. Consider yourself lucky, Americans can't post guns and the mail order forms we use are the only way to post them while making sure the person buying them is actually licensed.
"This isn't America" is all that really needs saying in reply to your hysterical pants on head post.
Haven't had a problem either asking questions or buying guns off Trademe recently.
My name wasn't exactly as my on license either.
...how recently? Genuine question because Trademe's license check now requires your details to match your FAL. Not a big deal, but not legally required either...Quote:
Originally Posted by systolic
One cannot count the cost when it comes to public safety. Even if only one life is saved through the introduction of universal registration then the exercise is worthwhile.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheWuce
Tax is not voluntary, thank goodness, so politicians need not concern themselves with cost when it comes to doing the right thing to make NZ a safer place.
Wrong, wrong, wrong, and wrong again. Four times in one paragraph must be some sort of a record.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheWuce
If you had of asked nicely I would have helped you with your ignorance, but since you were rude you can do your own research.
You might start by looking over Nicholas Taylor's site "Firearms Lawyer".
We have a system of "voluntary compliance" - which is even worse: if the taxpayer gets their obligation wrong they are hammered....and the government of the day (no matter who you support) spends it as they see fit. If a registration system is the order of the day: guess what - we fund it...logic or not.....Quote:
Originally Posted by JWB
About 45 minutes ago.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nickoli
I'll have another go shortly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nickoli
(The Outlaw Josey Wales)Quote:
There's just no end to doing good.
Okay sounds fun, lets do it.Quote:
Originally Posted by JWB
Quote:
Originally Posted by JWB
"There is no right to own or possess firearms under New Zealand law"
"A member of the Police (Arms Officer) may issue a license if he or she is satisfied that the applicant is a “fit and proper person"
Source: https://www.loc.gov/law/help/firearm...newzealand.php
"43A Mail order sale of firearm or ammunitionQuote:
Originally Posted by JWB
(1)Every person commits an offence and is liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $1,000 who sells by mail order a firearm or any ammunition for a firearm or restricted weapon otherwise than pursuant to a written order—
(a) signed by the purchaser; and
(b) bearing an endorsement signed by a member of the Police and stating that the member of the Police—
(i) has inspected the purchaser’s firearms licence; and
(ii) is satisfied that the purchaser is a fit and proper person to purchase that firearm or ammunition."
Source: Arms Act 1983 No 44 (as at 01 October 2018), Public Act – New Zealand Legislation
"federal law doesn’t allow a person to order a firearm online and have it shipped to him or her across state lines directly. A person can shop online, do research online, identify a firearm, and even pay for it, but the transfer will still have to go through an FFL"Quote:
Originally Posted by JWB
Source: https://www.nrablog.com/articles/201...ate-gun-sales/
Quote:
Originally Posted by JWB
"Only a “Police Form” from a Police email address, or the original, certified by a New Zealand Police District Arms Officer and mailed direct to the seller, will satisfy the Arms Actrequirement for the seller to take reasonable steps to ascertain whether you are a holder of afirearms licence, or in the case of an airgun, are of or over the age of 18 years old"
Source: http://www.police.govt.nz/sites/defa...ormation_0.pdf
...grabs popcorn....looking forward to this response...Quote:
Originally Posted by TheWuce
...grabs popcorn....looking forward to this response...Quote:
Originally Posted by TheWuce
I'm not sure a summary taken from the (American) Library of Congress is the best place for an definative answer about NZ firearms law.
Mainly because the answer quoted by TheWuce is wrong.
It is entertaining though.Quote:
Originally Posted by systolic
As you point out, an incorrect source, a police policy statement, the inability to comprehend the written word from current legislation and applying federal law to state law.
It's either wanton stupidity, or deliberate mischievousness.
BUT,, this is the target audience for police policy, so it will all work out for the greater good in pest free NZ, where there will be no possible justification for citizens to have access to private firearms.
The Govt. and it's enforcement arm will assure your personal safety in Gun-Free NZ.
The form being fill out is a legal requirement, however the act only requires as you quotedQuote:
Originally Posted by TheWuce
(a) signed by the purchaser; and
(b) bearing an endorsement signed by a member of the Police and stating that the member of the Police—
(i) has inspected the purchaser’s firearms licence; and
(ii) is satisfied that the purchaser is a fit and proper person to purchase that firearm or ammunition."
It is being challenged because the law requires a signed verified form stating the buyer has a license that the seller can rely on that a police officer has checked and the buyer is a legitimate FA license holder who you can send the firearm to.
The law does NOT require
a) the sellers Name, address or license details to be checked.
b) The details (or ANY details) of the firearm being purchased- (Though checking it is not stolen could be a good idea.)
c) And the law states it can be signed and checked by ANY warranted Police personnel- It does not need to go to the Arms office for checking.
These are additions that have been added by the police and the argument is whether they are allowed to legally require these when the law itself does not.
Essentially it is really only a statement of fact for the buyer that the seller does indeed have a licence. The Police form CAN have space for those other details IF NEEDED but they are not a LEGAL REQUIREMENT for the form to be processed. This is where the breaches are occurring when the officer tells a buyer that the form is incomplete and he cannot sign it, as long as it has the buyers name, address (?) and firearms license details and a stamped signature of a police officer, it is complete.
Close, but not quite!Quote:
Originally Posted by timattalon
The Act and Regulations do not require a police generated form. Because there is not a requirement for a police generated form, the fact that police have produced one makes it illegal. The fact that the form asks for information that is not required by the Act and Regulations makes this an illegal request by police. The question is who authorized this bogus form and the accompanying time allocated to it's production and processing. Insisting that the form can only be signed by a designated arms officer is a direct contradiction of the Act.
Police may only do that which is specified in Law. They may not make shit up.
You may produce your own form, which may be any grubby piece of paper, stating that you are purchasing a firearm or ammunition, and that you are a fit and proper person to purchase that firearm or ammunition. You are then required to take that form to any member of police and have them sign it after they have inspected your licence to check that you are the person in the photo. There is no provision for the recording of firearms licence details. No stamped signature. You sign it and the member of police signs it. Done.
The whole point of the exercise is that because the seller can't sight your firearms licence personally, that a member of police can sight the licence as the sellers proxy. It is not designed to add layers of difficulty to a sale.
A refusal by a member of police to sign the form when you have a current licence is a dereliction of statutory duty for which there are penalties. The barrister, Nicholas Taylor wants to hear from any firearms owner who has been obstructed by police in this way and told to use the police form. Please record identifying details of the police member concerned and pass on to Mr Taylor.
He has even produced a generic form for the use of firearms owners who do not wish to produce their own.
Those who play on Trademe and accept their conditions are acting against firearms owners and participating in the enemies programme.
Those who use the police form 43a are acting against firearms owners and participating in the enemies programme.
I just use the police form provided and get my guns immediately rather than fuck around trying to buck the system for the sake of it.
Done it twice in the last month. Both time with guns brought off Trademe. I'm planning on doing it again in a few days if I don't get outbid.
And I don't give a fuck if you think that anyone who uses Trademe or a form 43a is "acting against firearms owners and participating in the enemies programme." I think you are weird.
It does not make the form illegal at all, it is simply not a legal requirement to use that form.Quote:
Originally Posted by JWB
The arms officer asked me what kind of scope I was going to put on one of the rifles I brought off Trademe.
Is he required to do that? Or is he acting illegally by asking?
Do I report him to Nick Taylor or straight to the Chief of Police or IPCA?
I'm really worried because I told him it would be a new Leupold scope, but in the end I put on an old Redfield that I already had because I had a couple of bills to pay.
If you had produced that form(assuming that you are a private citizen) it would not be an illegal form, as you, being a private citizen may do anything that the law does not forbid.Quote:
Originally Posted by gadgetman
Police in the other hand, being agents of the state may only do that that the law allows. If you cannot find the legislation permitting an action by an agent of the state then that action is illegal.
Fairly cut and dried, I would have thought!
I talked about this with Robbie Tiffin one day (who was also a lawyer) and I think he said something about the word "order" in the legislation meant there was some legal basis for the police form.
What you "think he said", or even if this was in fact his reasoned "legal" opinion, doesn't make it so! Not even close.Quote:
Originally Posted by stug
We have a practicing barrister, who specializes in firearms law, that is prepared to argue the opposite on behalf of firearms owners. Mr Tiffin was a firearms retailer who would not have wished to get into any drama with the police as there is no profit to him, but he may well have had a slight conscience over the matter and sought to excuse his compliant actions.
So by that it would be illegal for any 'agent of the state' to breathe while at work, unless you can find a law stating that they are able to do so?Quote:
Originally Posted by JWB
And how much would it cost to have a barrister argue in court about something that doesn't matter in the slightest to me, or I'd imagine many other gun owners? He'll want to be paid, win or lose. Over what piece of paper you fill in when buying a gun.Quote:
Originally Posted by JWB
People are different. Some will queue for the cattle-car, while others have to be dragged, kicking and screaming into the cattle car.Quote:
Originally Posted by systolic
Of course it’s important to recognize the cattle car from a passenger-car, so as not to join the queue through ignorance. Once the distinction is pointed out, it’s up to you as to your actions.
I'm sorry, for a moment there I thought you were equating filling in a form to to buy a mail order gun to being sent to a concentration camp.Quote:
Originally Posted by JWB
Silly me.
Actually it looks like the arms act probably has it covered.
Quote:
74 Regulations
(1)
The Governor-General may, from time to time, by Order in Council, make regulations for all or any of the following purposes:
(g)
prescribing forms of applications, permits, licences, endorsements, registers, notices, and other documents required for the purposes of this Act, or authorising the Commissioner to prescribe or approve such forms, and requiring the use of such forms:
That's because trade me makes a query on the police databaseQuote:
Originally Posted by Nickoli
The regulations created under the Act have to be officially created as Regulations by the Governor General though - Police policies and forms which are not specified by the legal Regulations don't have any standing under that clause.Quote:
Originally Posted by gadgetman
The current regulations are the Arms Regulations 1992: Arms Regulations 1992 (SR 1992/346) (as at 01 July 2017) Contents – New Zealand Legislation
Which as far as I can see don't add anything relating to s43a. Maybe during the next amendment they will try to change the regulations (part of the reason for having them is that its much easier to change Regulations than Acts of Parliament) to say the police form must be used, but unless that happens there is nothing in the law to say you have to.
Absolutely, the provision is in the law for Police to get the forms regulated, and get the information they want a requirement. But I would suspect that they have the ability to produce forms for day-to-day tasks, such as reports for thefts, ....Quote:
Originally Posted by GravelBen
They have the ability to produce forms for convenience of course - but I don't think they have a right to refuse to do their duty (or comply with the law) when citizens do comply with the law but don't use their forms.
After all, the Arms Act specifies in Section 3 that it binds the Crown ;)
The (g) you quote above is a subclause of (1), ie the forms created only have authority when ordered by the governor general as regulations.
You're onto it, what I've been saying all along. The forms themselves are not illegal, insistence that everything on them must be filled in before signing would be.Quote:
Originally Posted by GravelBen