https://kiwigunblog.wordpress.com/20...-policy-again/
Hi Folks just the messenger getting word out.
I feel for the Average cops out there with this going on.
Printable View
https://kiwigunblog.wordpress.com/20...-policy-again/
Hi Folks just the messenger getting word out.
I feel for the Average cops out there with this going on.
Oh FFS
When will these blue fuckwits ever stop?
its not the average cop, they are more concerned about sawn off shotguns and rifles than e-cat's. this is purely a few rotten apples at the top who are basically u.n puppets
Sent to styart nash:
Mr Nash,
I write to you regarding yet more unlawful actions by the NZ police regarding the enforcement of the NZ arms act. Specifically, how please have changed their interpretation of the law regarding how the length of an ‘E’ Endorsement firearm (Military style semi-automatic) is measured before falling below the set length that it then becomes classed as a pistol (762mm) and thus requiring a ‘B’ Endorsement. This is a change in police ‘policy’ that police are enforcing. It is not consistent with how the act reads. NZ police are here to enforce NZ legislation, not police policy. By enforcing policy and not legislation and then changing said policy, NZ police are in effect changing the legislation in regards to those with whom the legislation impacts (E endorsed firearms license holders). This is beyond their powers and is unlawful. As police minister, it is your responsibility to ensure that NZ police are not exceeding their powers and are enforcing legislation, not policy. Failure to do so is implicitly condoning NZ police actions of unlawfully enforcing policy rather than legislation. This is quite an alarming concept. If police are permitted to enforce their policy, who dictates when that policy changes? What policies are NZ police allowed to enforce instead of legislation? Where does it stop – road rules? financial legislation? Assault? Who makes the decision on where the boundary is for policy enforcement instead of legislation? It is an abuse of police powers.
Please note that I will be forwarding a copy of this email, and your response (or lack thereof) to several NZ media outlets.
In a few weeks the Police will appear in court to defend their policy of how to measure an MSSA rifle to ensure that the legal minimum length is met.
Here is the history:
1. Police released a policy – in writing – stating that ta rifle with a folding stock rifle would be measured in the open position.
2. Police changed this policy. Telling nobody. No campaign in the gun magazines or social media – nothing. When the Kiwi Gun Blog asked if the rumours of the change were true – the Police would not answer. We had to apply under the Official Information Act and wait a month to discover the truth.
3. We campaigned for the Police to at least include the length of any permanently affixed muzzle device. They agreed. Confirming at a Pistol Club meeting that if a tool was required for removal then it would be included in overall length.
4. The Kiwi Gun Blog then heard rumours of another reversal of policy. We asked Police if this was true. They would not say. So we again asked under the Official Information Act and after a month the response received was that police required an extension of time to answer the question because it necessitates consultations such that a proper response cannot be made within the original time limit
This response is democratically offensive. NZ police are enforcing a policy, not legislation, and are refusing to make the specifics of this policy public. This prevents firearms license holders from being charged by NZ police unlawfully enforcing policy over legislation. This is a gross abuse of police powers.
Further information can be found at the following link:
https://kiwigunblog.wordpress.com/20...-policy-again/
Do you condone these police actions?
Are you intending to stop these police actions?
Are you aware of the upcoming court case to challenge these unlawful police actions?
I await your response,
Pretty sure it's a waste of time whining to the Minister. He can actually do fuck all about how the police work. Which is a good thing.
Google 'constabulary independence'.
Here's a small outline from Wikipedia:
While the New Zealand Police is a government department with a minister responsible for it, the Commissioner and sworn members swear allegiance directly to the Sovereign and, by convention, have constabulary independence from the government of the day.
I don't think the police could stage a coup in this country, even if they wanted to.
What it means is that the the Minister, or anyone else in Government, can't tell the cops to say, stop a criminal investigation into someone just because they are a big donor to the political party making up the Government of the day.
Or to lock up people who belong to a political party other than the one in power. Or because of their religion. Or skin colour.
This is all basic secondary school social studies stuff. Unless you went to an 'alternative' school or studied for NCEA credits in weaving and listening to music.
If the police are answerable to the Crown directly and not the the government as Systolic claims, then I guess complaints about unlawful police policies and activities should be addressed to the Governor General as the Crown's representative (remember the Governor General legally has the power to dissolve parliament too if necessary).
Unfortunately some within the police bureaucracy seem to believe its their job to make up laws to suit themselves instead of enforcing the laws they are subject to.
That may be so, but you seem to underestimate the power of ministers a bit.
Remember last year when the police had a go with their wishlist of changes to the arms act ? Pressure from the firearms community on the then minister (Paula Bennet) has some interesting consequences. The phrase "torn a new arsehole" comes to mind if you think about what happened to some folks at police HQ.
Refusing to measure the gun length without first detaching parts which require a tool to be attached/detached does not hold water.
You might equally arbitrarily unscrew and remove the entire stock off any hunting rifle. If it can be fired in that state, then measure its length from the back of the bolt to the end of the rifling!
Or consider Lee-Enfield two piece stocks. Is someone going to get out a really big screwdriver and land someone in trouble? After all, those CAN be fired without butt stock attached!
Attachment 93116
The police policy do not appear to act in good faith - more like, "Now, let's see, how much hassle can one cause citing exisiting legislation..." It's got plausible deniability -- just requires at least one member of NZ Police to act stubbornly stupid in court. But such sadly also reflects poorly on intelligent members of the police force.
As for folding stocks, the initial undertaking to measure guns with stock extended was ill-advised, but I of course agree it would have been useful for police to stick to one policy. But it seems safe and reasonable in terms of applying the law to measure a gun in its shortest configuration if it can be extended/shortened without use of a tool. Harping on otherwise may cause some loss of credibility.
Attachment 93118
The law has not been changed so the legal situation remains unchanged. Police 'policy' has no legal clout if it differs (as it frequently does) from the law. If the Police come and take your firearm then the definition of a pistol is based totally on the length of it at the time they seize it. If they remove items that are normally meant to be there before they measure it (such as a butt stock, suppressor, or muzzle brake) then it is them who made the 'pistol', not you. The only exception to that rule is folding stocks. If the firearm is able to be held and fired with the stock folded and is below 762mm, then it is legally a 'pistol'. Therefore, firearms with folding stocks must be measured with the stock in the folded position (ie: the shortest useable length).
There was a recent discussion about all OAL length on here.
Police Policy on measuring MSSA Firearms on FOUNZ (I think this came out in March 2017):
http://www.founz.co.nz/wp-content/up..._-approval.pdf
The length of any firearm is measured without any “attachments” (whether or not
“permanently” attached (e.g. welding, pinned)), such as flash-hiders, silencers,
muzzle brakes, or barrel extensions. In the case of rifled firearms (such as rifles and
Pistols), barrel length will be determined by measuring from the muzzle to the bolt face
(excluding anything attached beyond the muzzle), this means that the chamber is included in
the measurement of the barrel, not just the rifled portion. The exception is for revolvers in
which barrel length is determined by the barrel only and excluding the chamber.
It is on the Police website as well
https://www.police.govt.nz/sites/def..._-approval.pdf
Following lobbying / discussions the following was released via email to various groups by the Police:
On the 13th of September the policy position below was distributed internally and externally. Since then I have been asked to provide clarification as to the points to be measured from and to. To determine overall length of the MSSA the measuring should start from the closed or folded stock position to the end of the flash suppressor, providing the flash suppressor is firmly fixed to the firearm in such a way that a tool is required to remove it.
Mike McIlraith - Arms Act Service Delivery Group"
This was released widely and is referenced on the
Kiwigunblog: https://kiwigunblog.wordpress.com/20...inimum-length/
Pistol NZ: https://www.pistolnz.org.nz/blog/759038
Deer stalkers (see page 8) http://www.wairarapanzda.org.nz/wp-c...newsletter.pdf
Essentially:
E cat's are measured by Police from flash suppressor to closed stock.
A cats - from end of stock (obviously can't be collapsible/foldable) to end of threads.
If I have read the Kiwi Gun Blog right and the chap referred to in the Kiwi Gun Blog article had an A cat firearm, which to make up the total length he counted a suppressor as part of the length, he has fallen outside of the Police guidelines for measuring length on an A cat.
Unfortunately the way NZ law works is
Law is made - > relevant enforcement agency seeks legal opinion on interpretation -> Court cases follow where the interpretation is decided - > Caselaw is made (precedents).
I am not saying it is right, just the way it is.
Would be a lot better of if the law was more specific, but then I suppose the Act is 35 years old and the amendments (e cat etc) came in 1992 after the Aramoana Massacre I believe.
I am not trying to say that the way that the Police measure firearms is correct as that is pretty subjective, however it appears that that they were at least somewhat clear with their intentions on this one. (Would have been a lot better if they had updated their Policy on their website rather than a (widely dispersed email).
In other words; They are a Paramilitary organisation and have been for quite sometime.Quote:
"While the New Zealand Police is a government department with a minister responsible for it, the Commissioner and sworn members swear allegiance directly to the Sovereign and, by convention, have constabulary independence from the government of the day."
I really am sick of them shifting the goal posts on us all the time. It leaves little to be desired and is not much of an incentive for us to follow the rules is it... And why should we??
You can't tell me that after TWO YEARS of them pushing their "ultra-vires" policy they aren't trying to drive a wedge between us & them. The police are clearly aware of how law-abiding firearm owners feel about all of this. I mean how many times do we have to say; "We are NOT the problem" "We are Law-Abiding, criminals are not" "Certain aesthetics for firearm's don't save lives" "Registries don't prevent real crime"
I could go on and on.
All the cards are on the table now, and they definitely know where our position lies on the matter - It's up to us to push back and make others aware that this will not be tolerated.
so currently one of my rifles has its wood off as i am re-oiling it. its still fireable in this condition so guess if the cops turn up i'm toast
I can't see there would be a way that would stand up in Court, that would mean every time a gunsmith did something like that when working on a rifle that they would be creating a Pistol.
If you took it out and starting using/firing it as just a barreled action though :whut: or stored it permanently like that and Police could prove somehow you intended to keep it like that permanently then I think you could find yourself in the poo.
@systolic, been thinking a bit about your comments regarding "constabulary independence"
Like much of the police hierarchy thinking, it is a concept inherited from the United Kingdom.
What it boils down to is actually operational independence, so that police are free to decide whether they wish to investigate or charge without undue influence from politicians.
What it does not mean, is policy independence. Which is what I suspect you (and some of the top brass) are aiming for.
It is the job of the police to enforce the law, not to dream up laws that fit their world view...
I’d never really thought about it, but what purpose do minimum length rules serve? If a license holder has a short or long rifle, he is still obliged to act within the law. If a criminal without an FAL has a short or long rifle, he is acting outside if the law. He can easily convert a long rifle into a short concealable rifle. If he is found with either he is stuffed.
Am I missing something?
Quick update. I will respond to Nash. I will also be contacting he prime minister's office and laying an ipca complaint. I encourage all of you to do similar if you wish to retain your sport.
From: Travis Mills <Travis.Mills@parliament.govt.nz>
Sent: Thursday, 16 August 2018 9:25 a.m.
To:xxxxx
Subject: NZ police enforcement of 'policy' over legislation
Dear Mr xxxxxx
Thank you for your email of 15 August 2018, to the Minister of Police, Hon Stuart Nash, concerning Police enforcement of the Arm Act.
Please note that there is a long standing convention that prevents Ministers from becoming involved in specific police investigations or operations. This ensures that operational matters within police remain free of any political influence or interference.
Your correspondence to the Minister has therefore been transferred to the office of the Commissioner of Police, for consideration by Police.
Yours faithfully
Travis
Travis Mills
Private Secretary (Police)
Office of Hon Stuart Nash, Minister of Police
Level 19 Bowen House | Parliament Buildings, Wellington 6010
M +64 021 220 6607
P +64 04 817 6979
E travis.mills@parliament.govt.nz
Right team,
here is the response.
1t point, they got my name wrong.
2nd they didnt really answer any of the questions.
3rd point. This has been shown to a few people, non shooters. They are quite concerned at the greater issue here - the abuse of police powers and the lack of accountability being dislayed. I think this is the actual important point that needs to be emphasasied.
I will be contact a few organizations emphasizing this point in order to continue placing pressure.
Keep on keepin on team.
Ah.. yes... but if you apply the logic of my original post, why do we even need pistol specific laws? Crims can and do make pistol sized firearms from rifles and shotguns. Whether they have a rifle, shortened rifle or pistol, they’re breaking the law, and naturally they’d be inclined to shorten whatever they can get their hands on anyway. Licensed firearm owners should be conducting themselves within the law, regardless of whether they’re using a 20mm cannon or a derringer.
It's based around the belief that pistols are:
A - Predominantly for defensive use, and the authorities want to maintain their own monopoly on who is accepted to have guns for defensive use
B - Easily concealable, making them suitable for criminal use.
The original fear that the authorities had with pistols, was the idea that they would be used against them in a soclialist/communist revolution. They were shit scared that what happened in the Russian Empire in 1917 would happen in western nations.
I don't see the need to have different categories of guns, I am allowed to own as many rifles as I want, I am not allowed to own a MSSA or Pistol (I have no interest in owning a pistol or a MSSA). Am I less a fit and prober person than many of you? The only difference is the compliance requirements for owning them, I assume this is to help prevent these types of guns falling into the wrong hands.
My 10/22 if cut down is just as dangerous as any 22 caliber pistol. I just wish the police would concentrate on catching crim's with guns and stop trying to make us (fit and proper people) law abiding voters into criminals.