Thread: Constitution and controls on firearms ownership

Originally Posted by JWB

Thank you.
"Concept", not law, "Implied", not stated anywhere,

"No specific law". What is not forbidden is allowed.

One is only required to secure firearms when they are not under your personal supervision. Should one wish to have a firearm in hand while wandering your property, watching TV, reading a book or going to bed, then there is no prohibition to doing so as it is under your personal supervision. They are in possession of a firearm for a lawful purpose which could be self-protection or protection of their family.
I humbly posit that yes, for practical purposes, you can rely on firearms for self defence. At least on your own property. You certainly cannot rely on the police to protect your person or your family. They always turn up after the event to catalogue the victims.
You are responsible for you and your families protection.
Wasn't Baden-Powell's line "Be prepared".

I wont argue with your second point, because for me at least, I can assure you that I have no intention to be holding my loaded gun every moment while I am in my house, will not be doing that for the foreseeable future either. But, I respect your exercise of your lawful rights and doing it differently.

Re your first point, the concept of implied repeal is a legal concept, it is operative in common law countries such as New Zealand.