Thread: Insanity rules in the vetting process

Well lets not have this discussion go the same way then. It obviously triggers you so maybe this isn't the discussion for you, a helpful hint would be to block me then you cant see my posts. And yes I truly believe that the topics that aren't to be talked about on here are not firearms related, you can talk on facebook or whatever about non firearms related topics, there's also that triangle bottom left you can use as well

Gaslighting much????? And don't panic you've been on ignore list for months,I only looked as thar had commented. I shall endeavour to continue to ignore you. Feel free to continue discussing that Ozzie pond scum as you seem to deem it appropriate....maybe child molestation too as it's not a banned topic via the rules.

Some settling down might be required at this point chaps ?

So anyway back to the question, I think committing a violent offence using a firearm should be enough for you to loose the privelege of legal firearm ownership.

Originally Posted by Micky Duck

Gaslighting much????? And don't panic you've been on ignore list for months,I only looked as thar had commented. I shall endeavour to continue to ignore you. Feel free to continue discussing that Ozzie pond scum as you seem to deem it appropriate....maybe child molestation too as it's not a banned topic via the rules.

That is an interesting association to make, I am not entirely sure how we may have veered off into the realms of child molestation in just a few posts, but hey, you do you.

If it is really something you feel like you wish to discuss then I am certainly not going to judge you, my experience is limited although and I fear I will have little to offer in such a conversation.

One more vote for people with multiple armed robberies to never get an FAL

People don't change

Originally Posted by blip

So anyway back to the question, I think committing a violent offence using a firearm should be enough for you to loose the privelege of legal firearm ownership.

It is! But here is the rub. Although I typically sit in the camp with the nay-sayers on this subject, a privilege by its very nature can be both granted and withdrawn by whomever is in a position to do so and despite what we common folk think or believe should be the case, in the instance of the issue of a firearms license the exercising of this discretionary decision is not limited to a once only per individual.

Originally Posted by 308

People don't change

More often than not. Maybe even 99.9999999999% of the time.

Originally Posted by blip

So anyway back to the question, I think committing a violent offence using a firearm should be enough for you to loose the privelege of legal firearm ownership.

So, we can have a black and white system of democracy and justice, where everyone who does A, gets B. No accounting for circumstance or mitigating factors or change.

or we can have a system of democracy and justice that takes these things into account and adjusts accordingly.

I think the second system is better and fairer and worth having. Sure it does not always succeed, but overall the results are better.

The Christchurch terrorist was a bad example. because his crime was so heinous. It was equivalent to using hitler or Stalin in an internet argument.

Chill Chaps The bottom line here is the FSA/Police, whomever, are showing Blatant Double Standards and that needs addressing. My advice would be Nicholas Taylor (or some Lawyer) to take a Class Action, a very Public Class Action, against the FSA/Police on behalf of every Revoked Firearms Licence Holder. Put the Ball in their Court especially as 2026 is a big year for LaFOs, Arms Act Reforms and Election Year. Step up Mr Taylor, prove to us your Ethics and you're not in it for the money.

Even a modest law suit will set you back 50K....proving once again that 'justice' is not freely accessible to all.

Originally Posted by whanahuia

So, we can have a black and white system of democracy and justice, where everyone who does A, gets B. No accounting for circumstance or mitigating factors or change.

or we can have a system of democracy and justice that takes these things into account and adjusts accordingly.

I think the second system is better and fairer and worth having. Sure it does not always succeed, but overall the results are better.

The Christchurch terrorist was a bad example. because his crime was so heinous. It was equivalent to using hitler or Stalin in an internet argument.

The Christchurch terrorist example is fine to use - he needs to first serve out his sentence, but he will pass away in prison before that happens.

Yeah that analogy works: how many years need to go by before a convicted child molester gets to babysit your kids?

I think in some cases yes there does need to be a black and white system we are dealing with voilent offences here with firearms not stealing milk bottle money. How many of you guys have actually been threatend with a fire arm, like actually had one pointed at you. I have ( I used to do repos) and one of the only things going through your mind is, well this is it. Not something Id be willing to give someone a second chance at ever no matter how good they have been. You want to go hunting go take up archery or something

Originally Posted by Rushy

It is! But here is the rub. Although I typically sit in the camp with the nay-sayers on this subject, a privilege by its very nature can be both granted and withdrawn by whomever is in a position to do so and despite what we common folk think or believe should be the case, in the instance of the issue of a firearms license the exercising of this discretionary decision is not limited to a once only per individual.

The argument of a firearms licence being a privilege is a really interesting one to have - I would be willing to argue that just because it has been decreed that "It is a privilege to hold a firearms licence" does not in fact make it a privilege.

What that has done, is further make a confused mess out of the firearms legislation and taken it further from the realms of "enabling legislation" and closer towards the "must be contested" legislation. It's not ideal, and because certain people at that time decided it was desirable to de-power firearms owners - they latched onto that particular mechanism in a fit of Ardern-esque cuddles as 'the' way to achieve it.

If in fact holding a firearms licence is a privilege, why is there constrained in firearms legislation a right to challenge revocation of a licence in the sections of the same Act that allow the regulator to revoke a licence?