Thread: Call to Arms

Originally Posted by Savage1

Any one can import an MSSA, in parts, don't try and make out that the statement is incorrect.

Just because crime is at a "low" doesn't mean that it's not a problem or that there isn't going to be a problem, I'm actually finding there are more armed offenders out there, especially in the last 12 months, but this could just be regional, but there is a major problem.

The problem is that any person can import the parts to assemble a MSSA or buy up a-cat firearms and onsell them to anyone without any kind of trail. The Police assosiation example involving the head hunter is a perfect example, he hasn't been prosecuted as there is proof that he supplied to unlicenced people.

In the last six months I've been involved in two incidents where guns were pointed at frontline police, one incident shots were fired and it was a MSSA.

Just because something is an offence doesn't mean that it's a deterrent, just like speeding, lots of people speed on open roads, put a speed camera out there (a way of being caught) and they stop.

The PA presentation was reffering to too many firearms in the wrong hands, not in general.

1) Yes possession of ammunition by a non-FAL holder is already an offence, I'm unsure why he thinks otherwise but is a very minor issue here.
2)3)4) Agreed, not really needed.
5) I disagree with this as well, too much hassle. I'd rather a compulsory notification sent to Police via e-form or similar. It's not about whether a criminal would obtain a p2p, it's that the FAL holder wouldn't sell to a person without one as they could be traced.
6) they haven't defined what the new category would involve here so speculation can go both ways, it does need some kind of change to make less open to interpretation.
7)prohibition orders would stop people using them under someone elses supervision which isn't an offence and would remove any defence for having one, great idea for certain people.
8)fit and proper is subjective to the police, that is in law, so if they decide to put it in a code book then it is arguable whether it is law or not. Sure it can be challenged in the courts but anything can be. Your argument is irrelevant to the point.
9)stops muppets from intantly applying, getting turned down and dragging it through the courts. But agreed it's not really needed.
10) It's the courts that decided that being a gangmember alone isn't reason enough not to be considered fit and proper. Police are bound by the courts decision so your whole argument is unfounded.
11) I actually think this is ok, they're already recording B C E cat weapons and it appears to be effective, sure there are negatives but there are certainly positives as well, the main one being the deterrence of on-selling to non FAL holders.
12)Judges can't just dish out maximum sentences cumulatively whenever they like, they're bound by legislation and are also open to appeal. To increase the penalties would give the judges more freedom to give bigger sentences. it's much easier to give 2yrs imprisonment on a 10yr max penalty that a 2yr max penalty.
13) selling firearms to unlicenced people?
14) Who cares what section it is, that's erroneous. This is a great submission, financial burden? Do you expect them to spec bank safes? more likely BCE standards or less.
15)there is nothing to say an endorsenment can't be issued until there is suitable storage arangements, this would remove that.
16)Do you really have a problem with random inspections? I see no end of unsecured firearms by some great and generally responsible people, so many get stolen from unlocked safes too. It's hardly like your house is going to be searched whilst you're put in plasticuffs and are not free to leave. If all people were reasonable this kind of thing wouldn't need to be law.
17)actually it's the police who decides who is fit and proper so it's up to them to revoke FALs, it's in the arms act.

You talk about effective enforcement however the problem is that the Police aren't able to enforce some of the current laws because of easy defences and lack of accountability of FAL holders for the whereabouts of their firearms. Have you ever investigated a burglary? If so you'd know just how notoriously hard they are to solve due to lack of evidence, and if this is how FAs are mainly obtained then increasing security should be first priority. Preaching about Police needing to solve more burglaries is just easy scapegoating.

Not all people that're vetted 'fit and proper' are 'fit and proper'

I'm not against you at all, just trying to add a bit of perspective and play devils advocate.

I see and understand that there are clearly different perspectives on these issues. My biggest concern is around the sheer volume of resources in dollars and manpower hours that will be needed to cope with the suggestions. The delays show us they cannot cope with the resources that are available now. If we were to put a value or indication on the cost in staffing and dollars, would these resources not be more beneficial to be spent on actually targeting the criminals? The police , and especially the front lie cops, have enough of a challenge now. Let put the resources that we can into the place where it will do the most good. The Canadians spent over $2billion on registration before giving up. That is nearly $60 per person in Canada. To put that in perspective that would be about $227 million in NZ. Lets put that to better use.