this will probably start a shit fight but that is not the intention
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/107...atening-letter
this will probably start a shit fight but that is not the intention
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/107...atening-letter
Great to see our police enforcing the Firearms Act.
Say/write stupid things; have consequences. :-)
His mate was on his FB page, openly wishing for "another Stanley Graham" to sort out the local police, who he referred to as "stormtroopers". Absolute fucking looney tunes, he needs a visit too
just to point out I am not a supporter or fanatic
Having a FAL is a privilege not a right, start making threats to any government agency regardless of the intention and you will end up neck deep in shit. After seeing the video and the manner in which he spoke to the Police, of which they both held a very polite and professional manner by the way, I'm not surprised he lost his FAL.
I am as anti 1080 as the next guy but I'm not a dickhead about it.
If in the first instance you have an FAL and own firearms and then you make overt threat toward others using the word lethal in amongst what you say, what other conclusion do you think the Police would arrive at. That shit is as dumb as the dumbest thing on national dumb day.
A Firearm License is a right governed by law , that is why the term " shall issue " is used in the legislation and also why it is mentioned in the Bill of Rights 1688 .
And as for the "threats " , their going to have a hard time explaining how calling someone a 'Terrorist " is somehow an indirect threat ?? . He may not be a rocket scientist but the Police are drawing a long bow .
First and foremost I want to state that following this sort of action I would expect revocation of a firearms license to be a natural response to the threats made and that the police actions in this case were what I would ask and expect them to do.
He has "indirectly threatened staff with "lethal force" because of their stance on 1080.". I would be curious how INDIRECTLY it is to go to the point of revoking a license.
He may well be a sound safe a potentially "fit and proper" person to have a license, or he may not. And in all likelihood the threats are all emotive strongly worded statements and with little or no intention of following through and causing anyone harm. However due to the nature of these statements, it does (and rightly so) fall to him to prove to the police that he should be allowed his license back. Whether he can or not will decide whether he gets it back or not.
The 1080 topic has some very strong conflicting opinions on both sides, and both sides are feeling hard done by. But I do not believe either side has the right to threaten the other at a personal level. If he is feeling so strongly about this that he has written and committed to these statements to the level that the police are claiming (and they will obviously have hard copy) then it could easily be that he is currently not fit to hold firearms.
I would also point out that I also understand his frustration around the issue, and would point out too, that if these anti 1080 protesters were not feeling completely ignored it may be that would not have come to this.
I have to ak the question ? . What was the Indirect threat ???? . Calling someone a name is not a threat .
I have to ask the question, how do people who regularly dominate the media consider themselves ignored?
I'm constantly ignored but have never threatened anyone.
Does she alone have the right to do this? Or would there be consultation? That’s a lot of power to one person?
The guy is a nutter, and may very well NOT be fit and proper, but I can't find any reference to any threat of lethal force. He called people terrorists.
Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk
Examine the logic:
He says,
"We believe that your terrorist actions are torturing and offering undue acts of cruelty to non-targeted species ... you have poisoned our children's future and as such we wish you to cease and desist,"
Cop says,
"You ... indirectly threatened the [council] employees with lethal force in relation to their support or stance towards 1080 drops, citing said employees to be deemed as terrorists,"
When you step in one and it smells like one, you're dealing with a genuine non sequitur. It genuinely terrorises me when someone in power use arbitrary logic like this and I hope the courts will agree. I can only wonder what pressure Mel Aitken is under to screw about with reason in that way - if that is so, it will not be pressure from any true friend of hers.
Bottom line is, animal cruelty is animal cruelty - but people do not like being told to their face that they're cruel and wrong and find this very threatening. After all, who does he think he is to challenge our groupthink morals??? We are 'only following orders' and so deserve that police will go and construct allegations against someone who dares to confront us about our willing compliance.
Has his fal been revoked or suspended. The issue is i think he has concealed those firearms and undoubtedly still has access to them which now constitutes a clear criminal offence if he accesses them.
He has the right to have the suspension reviewed and I hope he does but from the video and a quick look at his fb page he doesn't exactly fit the definition of fit and proper in my mind. Perhaps a test case to set parameters for that definition is a good idea.
Hmmmm. Odd.
I sent an email to my AO about someone who has lost their driving licence multiple times, including doing a runner and having a police chase. Has been on home detention multiple times. Loosing drivers licence once or being sentenced to Home detention once is not a huge issue depending on what they did. But Multiple times of both already shows to me they are not "Fit and proper"
And they have multiple threats against 1080 supporters and the police including
"If there was a reward for 1080 droppers ears like there used to be for animals i will be out hunting all day"
Talking about police "I wanta (sic) shoot one and watch everyone not give a fuck, lets call it pig hunting"
And generic ramblings that makes me think they are an unstable person..
......They still have their FAL
As with ALL Stuff articles, not all the truth will be there. The use of the word Terrorist will grab headlines and is there for click bait. The actual threats may not have been published for any number of reasons, but the main one I can think of is that it would be detrimental to the story which is to encourage the conflict.
Or it may not have been published if there is a genuine belief that someone will try to commit the act. Either way I trust Stuff about as much as I trust twigs and tweets to tell the truth. Remember that their motto is Never let the facts get in the way of a good headline....
Personally, if the police have seen fit to follow through with this, I would like to believe there is more to it than a simple reference to terrorism in a letter. That term does not by itself equate to a threat of lethal force so one must conclude that there had to be an actual threat of some sort within the unpublished part of the letter.
I would hope the perceived bias is not a factor?
Sounds like a witch hunt to me....councilor has a word in the cops ear to make life difficult for this guy and here we are.
As far as I can see he has done nothing wrong but legal protest and no threatening action at all?
In the context of recent threats to DOC staff and potentially dangerous incidents this guy loosing his FAL is the only response the police could reasonably take. One gunshot in the vicinity of DOC workers on the Coast and the police would be facing ranting journalists forcing them to explain why any anti-1080 protester still has a FAL. If tensions were not already so high it could be handled differently, but not in this context.
What happened to the guy that assaulted Scribe? Or did that not happen?
I didn't say threats specifically from this one individual, I'm talking about ongoing threats to DOC staff nationwide. For example if I wrote a letter to local DOC staff saying they might get shot at if they drop 1080 here (without saying anything about doing it myself), I would expect to loose my FAL too.
"Citations" (among many available with google and 30 seconds to spare);
https://www.odt.co.nz/news/national/...aff-threatened
https://www.doc.govt.nz/news/media-r...eats-to-staff/
The initial letter would have bullet pointed reasons they have to revoke his licence, for some reason he hasn't put that up.
@timattalon
To re-quote Mel Aitken: "You ... indirectly threatened the [council] employees with lethal force in relation to their support or stance towards 1080 drops, citing said employees to be deemed as terrorists,".
"The mustbemoretothisstory" response is well and good but not as a knee jerk response. The quote of Mel Aitken clearly states what is the basis for her action: that calling someone's actions "terrorist actions" means (first logic jump) that you are "calling them terrorists" and that calling someone terrorists means [logic long jump here] that you "indirectly threaten" them [here's another long jump] "with lethal force" [when he himself only actually calls for an action on their part - that they "cease and desist"]. Mel Aitken may be acting ill advisedly, but I don't think she'd bother to do such mental gymnastics if it was a simple case of someone having made an actual threat of violence.
@Marty Henry
Re stashing his guns with a mate, he is not going to access his guns because he's a law abiding citizen. Also too busy enjoying dragging the cops to court, with reasonable expectation of getting his FAL back. I hope he has a good barrister - not a lot of money about on the West Coast, thanks in part to Twig & Tweet.
I see that he gave his firearms to another FAL holder stating that they once belonged to his farther.
Can't see anything wrong with that in general. There still under lock and key and he would not have direct access to them.
Yes I'd take his FAL license away if these allegations are true. (His firearms can then be past to another family member with the correct FAL so that the family heirlooms are not destroyed).
But I would also do similar to what he has done if I was getting divorced or had any altercation where I thought my FAL would be in jeopardy. From what has been printed in the press the police seem to have this right. Which is good, but why do (separate issue) do gang members and associates still have FAL? You just need to have them drive past to feel threatened.
I do hope that this is not a witch hunt! With the powers that be trying to shut up our right to protest! That would be JUST as alarming as what this chap has allegedly done.
Neither of these quote the man specifically...infact those links involve us all as "Cunters" even if you dont agree with the sentiment as I am sure most of us do not. (even if you dont hunt it wont matter Eugenie hates you too)
Presumably you own a firearm or two and may even be a hunter as well so therefor under the evidence presented (none) you and I and every other licensed firearms owner are in the sights of the govt if you dare question its motives or direction.....best be a sheep ay?...well at least until your throat is cut.
I dont know the man...I dont follow anti 1080 protesting.
From that "news" report and a link of the revocation of his licence video shared to me by a member I believe the man is being harrased and victimised as other protesters have been by our govt and police.
I and many of you other forum members may not agree with this mans protest but surely we must all agree harassment for legally protesting something you believe strongly in is oppression plain and simple.
Anyone remember Apartheid ?
Freedom of speech and peaceful protest must be upheld without retribution by "the man" or we will end up with a dictatorship.