Thread: Insanity rules in the vetting process

Originally Posted by inglishill

Perhaps he is going to try and be a Police Officer now.

At least he'd pass the physical

Originally Posted by XR500

At least he'd pass the physical

Very topical aside.

Originally Posted by blip

Quite ironic that he was a rugby player

League. That makes his reform even more commendable.

The rehabilitation discussion is really interesting - as a firearms licence holder the conversations I've been a part of would indicate that the "clean slate" system would not be applicable, yet in certain cases people with extensive and serious offending turn up as examples where this is not the case.

It would be really interesting to have this laid out somewhere where we could look at a document that guides the thought process behind the issuing of FAL's in cases like this - why some get a "no, don't bother applying" and others are successful.

I think youll find its the same old different rules for different people. Youd think one rule for everyone would be a far simpler system to opperate but aplarently it musnt be

The COLFO link in the first post now doesn't work

Originally Posted by Happy Jack

The COLFO link in the first post now doesn't work

You are correct about the original link.
COLFO have updated their post and admitted that they did not sufficiently fact-check their statement. Too reliant on the veracity of the original information/source.
The correction here https://www.colfo.org/post/colfo-apo...ed-information

Really irritates me how society grabs hold of these "stories or redemption" as if it's some awesome way to show our kids etc they can make something of themselves. Nobody puts any value on the person who actually puts their head down in life and goes out and achieves things WITHOUT being a fuckhead first. It's like teaching young ones that it's all good to go around being an antisocial menace to society as long as you eventually clean up your act you'll be all good. There's a guy in the farming community like this also, sick of seeing his face plastered everywhere because he "turned his life around" the guy and his mates kicked a pensioners head in and killed him. I believe you should have to carry the burden of your actions always. Wouldn't surprise me if he has a FAL now also

Originally Posted by Ryan_Songhurst

Really irritates me how society grabs hold of these "stories or redemption" as if it's some awesome way to show our kids etc they can make something of themselves. Nobody puts any value on the person who actually puts their head down in life and goes out and achieves things WITHOUT being a fuckhead first. It's like teaching young ones that it's all good to go around being an antisocial menace to society as long as you eventually clean up your act you'll be all good. There's a guy in the farming community like this also, sick of seeing his face plastered everywhere because he "turned his life around" the guy and his mates kicked a pensioners head in and killed him. I believe you should have to carry the burden of your actions always. Wouldn't surprise me if he has a FAL now also

Irs always like that though. The person who works hard and payes their dues is a net gain to society,the fuckwit is a cost.Fuckwits generally breed lots of fuckwits until the fuckwit base is so broard they become an attractive mass of potential voters.

Breaking the cycle of fuckwittery isn't an option there on after,so more and more GC's leave the country.

Originally Posted by norsk

Irs always like that though. The person who works hard and payes their dues is a net gain to society,the fuckwit is a cost.Fuckwits generally breed lots of fuckwits until the fuckwit base is so broard they become an attractive mass of potential voters.

Breaking the cycle of fuckwittery isn't an option there on after,so more and more GC's leave the country.

You win the internet today. If you are ever in Auckland, I'll buy you a beer.

He's guilty of committing 15 armed robberies. Did 6 years in prison. And can now have a FAL.

But us ex military types, who were assessed as having sufficient integrity and strength of conviction to be personally responsible for a couple of dozen belt fed machine guns and couple of hundred assault rifles are not deemed fit to own a semi automatic hunting firearm.

Two different standards for two different types of people I think

Originally Posted by XR500

He's guilty of committing 15 armed robberies. Did 6 years in prison. And can now have a FAL.

But us ex military types, who were assessed as having sufficient integrity and strength of conviction to be personally responsible for a couple of dozen belt fed machine guns and couple of hundred assault rifles are not deemed fit to own a semi automatic hunting firearm.

Two different standards for two different types of people I think

How many people in the NZDF? - Maybe 15k or so. Hardly enough to matter as a voting bloc.

And that is all that matters to a politician.

Originally Posted by XR500

He's guilty of committing 15 armed robberies. Did 6 years in prison. And can now have a FAL.

But us ex military types, who were assessed as having sufficient integrity and strength of conviction to be personally responsible for a couple of dozen belt fed machine guns and couple of hundred assault rifles are not deemed fit to own a semi automatic hunting firearm.

Two different standards for two different types of people I think

It is ironic to see the various European countries that were in the process of disarming the civilians now actively trying to put firearms in their hands.

I suppose one conclusion that one may draw from this is that those who are in power want to disarm civilian populations, why, well, they must think they are doing something wrong and need to 'protect' themselves with the disarming. As soon as a credible threat emerges, they want to rearm the populace, the threat from external forces are larger than the threat from the internal ones. History has shown this is the mechanism of choice over and over.

I do not agree with it but am able to see the pattern. Problem is that the populations have always allowed this to happen under the guise of 'for your protection'.

There have always been those who have said 'Not on my watch', but they are the ones who are penalised the most, and, the earliest.

Perhaps it may eventuate that this fellow will in the future commit more armed burglaries, I don't have a crystal ball and can not predict that, but if he does, it would be spun so that the upstanding success story can go wrong, so NO ONE may then be trusted. The past will be by convenience forgotten and those that remember the past and make comment will be tarred as 'conspiracy nuts' or 'right wing extremists' or whatever the hatred for the day is.

If there is a better way to stop this cycle, I have not thought of it yet.

There needs to be a recognition of rehabilitation over a period of time, where the conduct and behavior of a person convicted demonstrates they have reformed, and they have not reoffended. Without this it is very difficult for people reenter society. There are a number of people with convictions for crimes committed when they are young and often immature or just dumb. If they learn from this and there is no reoffending then I have no issue with them obtaining a FAL, however there is clearly a limit.
This is why there is currently a 7-year limit on the disclosure of some previous convictions, to allow those with convictions to operate in society without the stigma of their past, given they have not reoffended.

Multiple serious offences like aggravated robbery should disqualify one from ever holding a firearms license. Violent offences must be viewed as a major red flag, without question.
It is hard to accept that a FAL could be granted to anyone with 15 serious convictions involving violent offending and it raises serious questions about the integrity of the system which allowed this to happen, given the current Police stance on criminals having access to firearms.
While I am unsure of the date the FAL was issued, I would have expected aggravated robbery x 15 would have prevented it irrespective of the date of application.
It would be good to understand if anyone is going to make an official information request to see the decision to justify the granting of this FAL. Be good to watch Cahill squirm trying to justify it as well, given his stance.

can the police themselves appeal these decisions?
and if they can the next obvious question would have to be why dont they? I'm sure anyone on this forum wouldn't have a shit show off getting a fal with a record like that...