Yes Wingman a good point
might take me some time to type my oddballs up
Printable View
Yes Wingman a good point
might take me some time to type my oddballs up
Nope, it's in the law, Crimes Act 216B Prohibition on use of interception devices: Subsection 1 does not apply where the person intercepting the private communication—Quote:
Originally Posted by No.3
a is a party to that private communication;
However you do have to be careful how you use it. Where it gets interesting in court is if someone claims they didn't mean what they said, by telling them you are recording the conversation you are setting an expectation that everything they say will be truthful. However in calling a government agency (or company) the expectation would be everything they say is truthful as representatives of that agency - with or without telling them you are recording this conversation.
Years ago I used to cover a sales territory from Wgtn to Tarakani and across to Hawkes Bay. I used to get customers ringing me all the the time on the road with complex questions, at the time (early 2000s) I had an early smartphone which could auto record all calls. So I could talk them while driving (hands free of course!) and get back to the office and review the call. So I was obviously quite interested in the legality of what I was doing.
Based on my recent experience the Register DOES require recording of the actual cartridge / chambering of a rifle being registered, not simply the cartridge calibre e.g. .30 , .22 , .375 cal etc. In the Register while entering details of a particular firearm there comes a point where a page of cartridge options pops up and from which selection is made. Without completing this step I'm not sure that the recording of a particular firearm can be successful. But, happy to be corrected if I'm wrong ...Quote:
Originally Posted by Wingman
It can be correctly recorded by the requested caliber if you use the custom manual entering system or call the call center and have them enter it correctly.
A little off topic, but the family court proceedings and decisions I saw quoted some other legislation as being relevant to making recordings as well. In one case, one parent recorded the court-ordered video call contacts between the other parent and the child over a period of time without declaring this and got ordered to destroy all recordings as inadmissible and a breach of some such an act (not the crimes act in this case) - this was due to the recorded parent's right to privacy and freedom of communication being infringed. It wasn't an act I would have automatically linked to this topic either. It was a close run thing to Police being directed to charge the wayward parent which is not something that happens at Family Court that often at all I'm lead to believe.Quote:
Originally Posted by vulcannz
The point there is that you basically do need to now inform all parties that calls are being recorded - this is why when you call most larger companies they either verbally inform you of call recording or an automated message plays the same thing. So I would be very reluctant to record a call without notifying the other party as you could end up in the crap literally.
The prob with the family court issue would be that the parent was not one of the parties in the conversation.
Here ya go
"It is fine to record a phone conversation if all of the people in the conversation have agreed to it. However, the legality of recording a conversation secretly will depend on the circumstances, in particular who is making the recording and what their reasons are for doing it.
Under the Crimes Act it is illegal to record a conversation that you are not participating in, without the consent of the people in the conversation.
It is not illegal to record a conversation without telling the other people in the conversation if you are a participant in the conversation. However, if you try to use it as evidence in court, the court can rule this evidence as inadmissible. Also, if the recording is for use as evidence in an employment dispute, the fact that it was done without the other participants’ knowledge could be considered a breach of good faith.
If you use a recording in a harmful or offensive way you could be in breach of the Privacy Act or the Harmful Digital Communications Act."
Yeah nah, I've helped a few people out with employment disputes where the boss has been an arsehole (in particular bullies who say stuff then what is written down is different), and told them to record all conversations. It's ended up worth it's weight in gold.
I've just used the register. Not too bad, but also not entirely straight forward. The biggest issue for me was not being able to edit ammo capacity after selecting the pre-loaded firearm info. I had two .22s that were present in the register but both listed higher ammo counts than presently allowed. I had to phone up to get these entered.
I just got an email saying "According to our records, you’ve been involved in an event that means you may now be required to update the Registry. You must do this within the time frame specified."
I think it's because I updated my email address and contact phone in their system (they had neither).
Quote:
Originally Posted by vulcannz
That's an ambiguous statement for an official email. They could also say "you may not have to update the Registry" No wonder so many people are confused.
It is crystal clear this register is and it will be a waste of money. much the same as the canadian registry.Quote:
Originally Posted by No good names left
They abolished that in 2011 in Canada not because they did not have the tech or tools like our politicians likes us to believe, but because it was useless in combating the crime and crime firearms.
It is also crystal clear that we will need to VOTE ACT in the Oct elections in order to abolish both this law and this government.
Who ever thinks National will scrap the registry is a fool.
You only need to remember their position during the confiscation and also remember the "wonderful performance" of Judith Collins who was "lifting balls" (maybe lea..ing ) for michael woods "share boy" during the finance committee farce consultation before confiscation.
Is there anything else I missed? Maybe the former Police minister nashi, yes the integrity guy who turned out to be a crook selling secrets from beehive to his political funders.
It was just 4 years ago. Not that long ago to say:
"Welcome to the 2002 New Year party - the Alzheimer Association"
How long did the Canadian register last for ? @ronz said it was scrapped in 2011
Just hoping that our one doesn't last long
here are the causes. Sounds familiar?Quote:
Originally Posted by No good names left
In early 2000, the Canadian Firearms Program released a report that showed that implementation costs were rising. Major backlogs in registration—largely as a result of firearm owners waiting until the last minute to apply—general increase in costs, fee waivers for early applications, and high error rates in applications submitted by firearm owners were all cited as contributing factors to the rising costs.[9]
In December 2001, the cost rose to an estimated $527 million for the whole gun control program which included the long-gun registry. The Canadian Firearms Program reported that a major factor behind the rising costs was the difficulty it had keeping track of licence fees collected
Suffice to look/REMEMBER at how well the government and government agencies managed the confiscation data base which spilled out on their webpage with name, address, serial number etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by No good names left
You guys already forgot about this?
When the police guy was asked at the antique firearm association meeting about what will happen with the data if the register was to be scrapped he mumbled something like "the law requires a registry....blah, blah blah"
Scare to be jobless soon?
Hopefully!
Ronz - suggest you familiarise yourself with moderators instructions re political content on this forum.
fair enough, thanks reminding me
To be fair, this whole registry bollux, is political.Quote:
Originally Posted by kotuku
As an aside, did anyone hear Coster, speaking about the shooting, suggesting, in regard to how that fella got his gun, putting a licensed firearms owner selling to someone without a license, as first on the list? Trying to legitimize this, methinks. Yeah, I know this comment may be construed as a little political, but, let's face it, this whole thing is political.
Just rego my 2 toys,help centre very good and patient with my phone key board tapping.Didnt take long at all.
Did he say that? Was that during his press conference?Quote:
Originally Posted by Growlybear
I was informed by someone who is on the Firearms Advisory Council that the wording of the act means that the registration of firearms will be reviewed after 5 years and if it's not working out then they can dump the register. However until that trial period is up it's pretty locked in. A change of government wouldn't be able to abolish it in their first term. If that's the case it's no use trying to wait out the election to delay registering. Personally I'd wait to have kinks ironed out, not due to trying to avoid it altogether.
Has anyone asked or received advice on how they wish you to enter a bolt action rifle a where you have both box mag and detachable mag you swap around, eg howa's
Just my guess but I would tend to register with the largest capacity optionQuote:
Originally Posted by Squirrel
I assumed so too but will get an answer in writing as I'm not willing to take any chances. I'm trying my luck with their email address first for a request to add a missing calibre. Cheers!
Unfortunately, that looks like the reality of the situation.Quote:
Originally Posted by BMcB
If the email doesn't work the guys on the phone are bloody helpful. I have had a couple of interactions with them, its been positive both times with solutions reached [emoji106]Quote:
Originally Posted by Squirrel
Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk
I believe Acts policy is to replace the Arms act in total with a more fit for purpose act so regardless of what the current Arms act says if it is replaced then the one becomes law as is the same with any law.Quote:
Originally Posted by BMcB
Even if it isn't completely changed then any law can be modified or replaced through the parliamentary process.
The same way the current legislation came into law it can be changed or repealed
There was three minions from the Licencing organisation at the Ruahine Gun Show yesterday and none of them appeared to be even slightly busy registering firearms - or talking to the general public . I wasnt there for the whole day but ...
On the other hand , Nichole McKee was there and was busy in discussion with many many folk all the time .....
We've got 5 years to update our firearms right? I'll see you guys in 59 months.
No need to apologise you were stating factsQuote:
Originally Posted by ronz
yes and in those arenas minds are changed like we change underpants and without consultation.Until the FAC put something on paper in this regard(which it should have done !)I remain sceptical to put it politely.Quote:
Originally Posted by BMcB
@Timmay , good to see your post:)Quote:
Originally Posted by Timmay
its going to fail, just a question of when. hell they couldnt even keep the register of B,C and E cat firearms current and accurate
yep stating facts in a way which sees a moderator barking at you .the rule is clearly spelled out on here more than once!how do i know -been there done thatQuote:
Originally Posted by omark
It was in response to a query, and he intimated that it was the most common way someone got an illegal firearm.Quote:
Originally Posted by ronz
I do struggle with the continued push from the powers that be with the statement that this is the most common way - it would seem that the published stats do not support this but there may well be some other set of stats that does back this up. On the recently published stats, it would seem that there is a very small group of people who were issued licences who subsequently were found to not meet the "fit and proper" test who did engage in straw buying and on selling - but also there were a group who lost firearms through criminal action i.e. burglary. Nothing I saw supported the statement the most common way criminals got firearms were through unlawful sales by firearms license holders. It would seem that "if you want to keep claiming it, prove it" needs to happen there.Quote:
Originally Posted by Growlybear
Either way, I cannot work out how a registry will stop loss through direct criminal action i.e. burglary - and without a mechanism to verify that the registered numbers match the contents of the registered person's safe it will only stop the law abiding from breaking the law (which ironically is exactly what the current laws do just at much lower cost as the law abiding weren't breaking the law anyway).
If they had the figures, they’d be all over them. But it builds fear.
What happens when say a registered semi auto shotgun is worn out or damaged and is no longer usable, what happens with it?
Hand it in / surrender it or have it destroyed and take it off the register would be a logical step.Quote:
Originally Posted by Scotts