Thread: Anyone a member of SSANZ or The NZ NSA?

I don't know dude but it sounds dodgy as fuck hiding weapons, and to me its illegal because you know where they are and you have access to it. Not a very good message to send out. I could be wrong of course as I'm only 17 and don't know fuck all but I feel its wrong.

Originally Posted by Toby

I don't know dude but it sounds dodgy as fuck hiding weapons, and to me its illegal because you know where they are and you have access to it. Not a very good message to send out. I could be wrong of course as I'm only 17 and don't know fuck all but I feel its wrong.

I ought to clarify that I am not discussing anything about weapons. What I am discussing here are firearms; sporting equipment used for recreational and occupational shooting. Weapons in New Zealand are held by the government (police and MoD) and criminals; these are used for shooting people and are not covered by the licensing, endorsement and permit provisions of the Arms Act.

Kind regards
Richard Lincoln

Originally Posted by krewzr

I ought to clarify that I am not discussing anything about weapons. What I am discussing here are firearms; sporting equipment used for recreational and occupational shooting. Weapons in New Zealand are held by the government (police and MoD) and criminals; these are used for shooting people and are not covered by the licensing, endorsement and permit provisions of the Arms Act.

Kind regards
Richard Lincoln

You like to point out exact wording in statues. In the Arms Act 1983 they refer to them as "Weapons".

I fail to see how the examples you have given show that they wouldn't be in possession of a firearm if the buried it. It would be an offence against s19 of the arms regulations.

Suggest you look at Section 66 of the Arms Act and think of how that would apply if the weapons were found buried on your property.

Remember ignorance/arrogance to law is not a defence.

Originally Posted by Savage1

You like to point out exact wording in statues. In the Arms Act 1983 they refer to them as "Weapons".

I fail to see how the examples you have given show that they wouldn't be in possession of a firearm if the buried it. It would be an offence against s19 of the arms regulations.

Suggest you look at Section 66 of the Arms Act and think of how that would apply if the weapons were found buried on your property.

Remember ignorance/arrogance to law is not a defence.

Yes I agree: I think it is important when discussing legal issues to be accurate. The Arms Act refers to "restricted weapons" and the regulations deem certain objects, ranging from tasers and pepper sprays through to full auto guns as "restricted weapons." Weapons are also refered to in the purpose section of the Arms Act. However, I choose to draw a clear distinction between a weapon and a firearm. The authority that I rely on is any reputable dictionary; all of which refer to a weapon as being an object used to attack or defend; normally in inter-human relationships. I am uncomfortable with the proposition that civilian sporting firearms are used for this purpose and police are adamant that civilian firearms cannot be possessed for that purpose. I note that I clarifed that that was my personal stance on the discussion.

S66 of the Arms Act is something that a civilian gun owner would need to take into account, if they had decided to disposess themself by burial, as to where they would bury the firearm. It would probably need to be on public land: i.e in a remote conservation area or similar.

S19 of the regulations does not apply unless possession exists. The whole point of burial is dispossession; therefore once the firearms are not in the possession of the licence holder, the security precautions do not apply. There are similar comparisons in regard to criminal possesion of firearms - unlicensed persons in unlawful possession of a firearm are not required to store the firearm in the regulated security precautions.

I think this is matter that we ought to simply be able to hold different opinions on. I am not asking you to agree with me anymore than I am willing to concede that your view is the correct one.

Kind Regards
Richard Lincoln

Originally Posted by krewzr

Yes I agree: I think it is important when discussing legal issues to be accurate. The Arms Act refers to "restricted weapons" and the regulations deem certain objects, ranging from tasers and pepper sprays through to full auto guns as "restricted weapons." Weapons are also refered to in the purpose section of the Arms Act. However, I choose to draw a clear distinction between a weapon and a firearm. The authority that I rely on is any reputable dictionary; all of which refer to a weapon as being an object used to attack or defend; normally in inter-human relationships. I am uncomfortable with the proposition that civilian sporting firearms are used for this purpose and police are adamant that civilian firearms cannot be possessed for that purpose. I note that I clarifed that that was my personal stance on the discussion.

S66 of the Arms Act is something that a civilian gun owner would need to take into account, if they had decided to disposess themself by burial, as to where they would bury the firearm. It would probably need to be on public land: i.e in a remote conservation area or similar.

S19 of the regulations does not apply unless possession exists. The whole point of burial is dispossession; therefore once the firearms are not in the possession of the licence holder, the security precautions do not apply. There are similar comparisons in regard to criminal possesion of firearms - unlicensed persons in unlawful possession of a firearm are not required to store the firearm in the regulated security precautions.

I think this is matter that we ought to simply be able to hold different opinions on. I am not asking you to agree with me anymore than I am willing to concede that your view is the correct one.

Kind Regards
Richard Lincoln

the phrase clutching at straws comes to mind
the argument is hugely subjective. the guidelines of this forum outline that we do not welcome political discussion. I think we will have a clean up of this thread when I'm at a computer

Originally Posted by krewzr

I ought to clarify that I am not discussing anything about weapons. What I am discussing here are firearms

Richard this is semantics. Weapons definitely can be firearms and clearly even sporting firearms can be weapons. As far as I am concerned Toby's comment is valid. Burying my income in an effort to claim I was dispossessed of it would not result in the government holding the view that I should not be taxed on it.

Originally Posted by Rushy

Richard this is semantics. Weapons definitely can be firearms and clearly even sporting firearms can be weapons. As far as I am concerned Toby's comment is valid. Burying my income in an effort to claim I was dispossessed of it would not result in the government holding the view that I should not be taxed on it.

With all due respect Rushy, that is a different question. You could disposses yourself of your income by spending it; that does not make it exempt from tax. The question here is, if you spent your income would you still be in possession of it... many would wish that that was so, including me, but I think the answer is fairly obvious.

Kind regards
Richard Lincoln