Thread: Support for tighter Acat storage

Originally Posted by Macca

I keep hearing about this chainsaw thing, But looking at my securoty it would be impossible to remove due to steel plate under floor running over to the next 2 rooms etc, so you'd need to demolish multiple walls too. Seems like it would take them too long and get a tap on the shoulder from police before they finish.

Wouldn't it just be easier for them to stand you over?

I can only parrot what local police have told me.

I know of another case in a different town, where the victim had a large E cat safe bolted to concrete floor and the side if his garage. Thieves backed a truck up to the building, wrapped chains around the safe and drove off ripping the safe out of the building. The firearms were slowly recovered in drug raids.

After talking to some incarcerated burglars during prison preaching. The common consensus among them is that the only thing that will dissuade them from targeting gun owners is if there's a chance that the home owner/ occupant may use a gun for self defence.

They know that we are not allowed to do this so the burglaries will continue. There needs to be a "castle doctrine" law setup in this country and an attitude change from the common people, politicians and police to allow this to happen.

Originally Posted by vbull

After talking to some incarcerated burglars during prison preaching. The common consensus among them is that the only thing that will dissuade them from targeting gun owners is if there's a chance that the home owner/ occupant may use a gun for self defence.

They know that we are not allowed to do this so the burglaries will continue. There needs to be a "castle doctrine" law setup in this country and an attitude change from the common people, politicians and police to allow this to happen.

I was wondering about mentioning the 'castle doctrine' ...thought 'nah better not , might come across like one of redneck good Ol' boys....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by vbull

After talking to some incarcerated burglars during prison preaching. The common consensus among them is that the only thing that will dissuade them from targeting gun owners is if there's a chance that the home owner/ occupant may use a gun for self defence.

They know that we are not allowed to do this so the burglaries will continue. There needs to be a "castle doctrine" law setup in this country and an attitude change from the common people, politicians and police to allow this to happen.

Ain't that the truth! This is why people should consider NZ First as their party vote. Castle Doctrine was introduced in Ireland's 2011 election, so why can't it here? It damn well should be considering there is no deterrent for criminals stealing guns with pathetic sentencing in our corrupt justice system.

Originally Posted by vbull

After talking to some incarcerated burglars during prison preaching. The common consensus among them is that the only thing that will dissuade them from targeting gun owners is if there's a chance that the home owner/ occupant may use a gun for self defence.

They know that we are not allowed to do this so the burglaries will continue. There needs to be a "castle doctrine" law setup in this country and an attitude change from the common people, politicians and police to allow this to happen.

New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 No 109 (as at 01 July 2013), Public Act – New Zealand Legislation

Life and the Security of the Person
As part of the right to life and security of the person, the Act guarantees everyone:

"The right not to be deprived of life except in accordance with fundamental justice (Section 8)"

Means to me that I can defend that right with any means necessary.

Originally Posted by Ryan

New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 No 109 (as at 01 July 2013), Public Act – New Zealand Legislation

Life and the Security of the Person
As part of the right to life and security of the person, the Act guarantees everyone:

"The right not to be deprived of life except in accordance with fundamental justice (Section 8)"

Means to me that I can defend that right with any means necessary.

And lose your entire lifes earnings defending it in court....= you still lose.

Originally Posted by Ryan

New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 No 109 (as at 01 July 2013), Public Act – New Zealand Legislation

Life and the Security of the Person
As part of the right to life and security of the person, the Act guarantees everyone:

"The right not to be deprived of life except in accordance with fundamental justice (Section 8)"

Means to me that I can defend that right with any means necessary.

Any means necessary? Really?

Why don't you talk to a lawyer and see what they say about that?

Originally Posted by systolic

Any means necessary? Really?

Why don't you talk to a lawyer and see what they say about that?

Are you a lawyer troll features?

Originally Posted by systolic

Any means necessary? Really?
Why don't you talk to a lawyer and see what they say about that?

@systolic. You have, as a law-abiding person, the right to defend your right to life, against anyone and with any means necessary. The important, moderating word to consider is of course "necessary". Did you really not know this?

Originally Posted by Cordite

@systolic. You have, as a law-abiding person, the right to defend your right to life, against anyone and with any means necessary. The important, moderating word to consider is of course "necessary". Did you really not know this?

No, the important word word is reasonable.

There's a difference between reasonable and "any means necessary"

Someone posted the bit of the law a couple of pages back in this thread.

I view the "requirements" as the minimum requirement. If you can afford to / want to do better there is nothing to stop you. I also firmly believe that if someone wants to steal my stuff I cannot stop them only make it harder..

Originally Posted by Ryan

New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 No 109 (as at 01 July 2013), Public Act – New Zealand Legislation

Life and the Security of the Person
As part of the right to life and security of the person, the Act guarantees everyone:

"The right not to be deprived of life except in accordance with fundamental justice (Section 8)"

Means to me that I can defend that right with any means necessary.

No, it means you can defend yourself with reasonable force. You have to be prepared to justify any such action because you should assume that you WILL be put on trial for use of lethal force.

Of course, you are NOT allowed to simply defend your property with potentially lethal force, e.g. do not send a couple of .308 rounds in the direction of fleeing cattle rustlers.

NZ is far too pink and the police won't want to give up their legal monopoly on shooting crims.
Putting them in prison long term too keep them out of circulation is probably the only short term option.
Let's just move along.

I suggest that regardless of the law purchasing the best security you can afford is worth it. Regardless of the outcome you will have done the best you can.

Originally Posted by 300CALMAN

NZ is far too pink and the police won't want to give up their legal monopoly on shooting crims.
Putting them in prison long term too keep them out of circulation is probably the only short term option.
Let's just move along.

I suggest that regardless of the law purchasing the best security you can afford is worth it. Regardless of the outcome you will have done the best you can.

Additional anti theft security does not have to be expensive to be effective. Everyone keeps going on about "this safe" and "that safe". Where some of the most effective security I have seen involved an average safe at best. But inside that safe were a number of big heavy F--K off steel eyes with a wire bike lock that passed though each magazine well and onto a big padlock. $10 to $20 per padlock, with two rifles to a padlock, and about 5 bike cables cost about $100 all up. The U/O that did not have a mag well had a Hasp and staple arrangement that meant the action / trigger was attached to the inside of the cabinet with another padlock.

If a thief has time, they can get anything. We need to make it as difficult as possible.

A cat security has a primary function of stopping those who should not be playing with them from hurting them selves- Children and people in the house etc. We can only do our best to stop theft, but we must stop a child getting access and hurting themselves or others by mistake.

Out if interest, can anyone reference what is actually statute law for reasonable force and/or necessary force in the defense of oneself or others?