The firearm thread

[pritch]

Funny, this thread used to be used for discussion on a variety of topics related to firearms but sometimes months would pass with no posts. Suddenly it's a hive of activity, including people who had not previously shown any interest which gives rise to the thought that they may not even own a firearm. That's OK of course, although they may not be particularly well informed.

Rushed legislation is usually faulty, this appears not to be an exception.

[jafagsx250]

Funny, this thread used to be used for discussion on a variety of topics related to firearms but sometimes months would pass with no posts. Suddenly it's a hive of activity, including people who had not previously shown any interest which gives rise to the thought that they may not even own a firearm. That's OK of course, although they may not be particularly well informed.

Rushed legislation is usually faulty, this appears not be an exception.

Everyone is now a gun expert. Anyone who actually owns them needs stay out. (sarcasm)

[TheDemonLord]

No i didnt as i have pointed out to you on five separate occasion, you are reading two separate parts of the act. One defines the intent ie what it means or is meant to mean. The the other what it covers in regards to possible parts if it fits the the first part being intent..

Except the wording inherently does not make sense when the 2 parts are read together.

Can a Suppressor or a Sight turn a Rifle into a Semi or Fully Automatic Rifle? Y/N?

If Yes - then post up an example.
If No - then legislation is badly written.

You want to take use one part in isolation. To prove some slly fantasy that you are soe legal expert when you are only a disgruntled owner of a now prohibited weapon soon to lose it.
For 5 occasions you have ignored this now, just as you will in the future. but i will not enter into any further debate regarding it with you.

I've looked at multiple clauses, So have the NZDA, so has COLFO - they have raised the same concern - that the wording of it (not the intent) is vague enough to potentially encompass all Suppressors and all Sights.

As for the laywers and the gun lobby, you were attempting to you a few saying something similar as proof you were right. i merely pointed out you were in the minority.

Those few however happen to know a thing or two about both Firearms and Law, they've also successfully challenged the Police on the interpretation of the Law, therefore based on their track record, they can be considered a reliable source.

But I simply re-state, if you think the law is well written and correct - then post an example.

WHich is rather ironic. Considering you current situation, with your previous statements on how those in the religious minority should do not not do.
If you want to discuss Islam do it in another thread.

And you still cannot say it. You still cannot say that stoning someone to death (a Horrible, Torturous, Cruel and deliberately drawn-out form of Capital punishment) for the 'crime' of being Gay is wrong.
You can't bring yourself to admit that maybe the part of the Qu'ran that says this is wrong, because you know if you do, you are just as Islamophobic (by your own standards) as me.

[TheDemonLord]

Rushed legislation is usually faulty, this appears not be an exception.

^^^

This.

[husaberg]

Except .

Not playing your game anymore refer to previous post
As i have pointed out to you on (six now) separate occasion, you are reading two separate parts of the act. One defines the intent ie what it means or is meant to mean. The the other what it covers in regards to possible parts if it fits the the first part being intent..
You want to take use one part in isolation. To prove some silly fantasy that you are soe legal expert when you are only a disgruntled owner of a now prohibited weapon soon to lose it.
For 6 occasions you have ignored this now, just as you will in the future. but i will not enter into any further debate regarding it with you.
As for the lawyers and the gun lobby, you were attempting to you a few saying something similar as proof you were right. i merely pointed out you were in the minority.
which is rather ironic. Considering you current situation, with your previous statements on how those in the religious minority should do not not do.
If you want to discuss Islam do it in another thread.

[TheDemonLord]

Not playing your game anymore refer to previous post

That's cause you are wrong and refuse to admit it - for a more detailed explanation of why you are wrong (From COLFO's written submission):

Part 1 Clause 4(3)(b) pg 6 – parts relating to a prohibited firearm are defined as now
including a butt, stock, silencer or sight. At Part 1 Clause 2C pg 7 a “prohibited part
means – (a) a part of a prohibited firearm” – we believe there are three possible
interpretations to the effect of clause 2C on clause 4(3)(b)
o The first is what we believe is the intent of the draft to prohibit parts “born as”
an MSSA part. An example would be a gas block or operating rod. However, it
would also include an extractor spring and possession of it would carry a more
serious penalty than assault.
o Then there are the parts that would fit both restricted firearms and standard
firearms. Such as a scope or other sight, a silencer or a stock. We query what
would happen if a person had possession of a prohibited part fitted to a standard
firearm?
o The most concerning interpretation being that any one of the now prohibited
firearm parts can be a prohibited part in its own right. The unintended
consequence is that every firearm has a stock and a sight so this could mean that
a firearm that is not a prohibited firearm may be classed prohibited because it
uses a prohibited part effectively making every firearm in the country a
prohibited firearm held without permit. We do not believe this is the intent of
the bill and request clarity on this aspect.

[husaberg]

Tha):

Not playing your game anymore refer to previous post
As i have pointed out to you on (7 now) separate occasion, you are reading two separate parts of the act. One defines the intent ie what it means or is meant to mean. The the other what it covers in regards to possible parts if it fits the the first part being intent..
You want to take use one part in isolation. To prove some silly fantasy that you are soe legal expert when you are only a disgruntled owner of a now prohibited weapon soon to lose it.
For 7 occasions you have ignored this now, just as you will in the future.
As for the lawyers and the gun lobby, you were attempting to you a few saying something similar as proof you were right. i merely pointed out you were in the minority.
Also note the word used you say does they say they are concerned "could" and "possible"


yet you said this

http://legislation.govt.nz/bill/gove...est/whole.html
Suppressors - Gone.
Calibres/Ammunition - Gone.
Sport Shooting - Gone.
Optics/Sights - Gone.
To all those who laughed and said 'Oh, this won't affect me', May I suggest you work on your submissions?
They want to Ban 'Military Calibres' - so .308, .223, 7.62, 5.56, .338, .303, .30-06, .30-30 - Gone.
What will the law abiding Kiwi Firearm owners be left with?

None of what you originally said is correct even as deemed by what you are now trying to crow somehow proves you correct.

[jasonu]

Funny, this thread used to be used for discussion on a variety of topics related to firearms but sometimes months would pass with no posts. Suddenly it's a hive of activity, including people who had not previously shown any interest which gives rise to the thought that they may not even own a firearm. That's OK of course, although they may not be particularly well informed.

Rushed legislation is usually faulty, this appears not be an exception.

Fuck it I have to agree with that.

Shame the silly old git has me on ignore.....or does he?

[TheDemonLord]

Not playing your game anymore refer to previous post
As i have pointed out to you on (7 now) separate occasion, you are reading two separate parts of the act. One defines the intent ie what it means or is meant to mean. The the other what it covers in regards to possible parts if it fits the the first part being intent..
You want to take use one part in isolation. To prove some silly fantasy that you are soe legal expert when you are only a disgruntled owner of a now prohibited weapon soon to lose it.
For 7 occasions you have ignored this now, just as you will in the future. but i will not enter into any further debate regarding it with you.
As for the lawyers and the gun lobby, you were attempting to you a few saying something similar as proof you were right. i merely pointed out you were in the minority.

You're not playing cause you know you've lost.

The issue is very clearly laid out, with references to the legislation. Minority/Majority has nothing to do with the interpretation of the Law.

[husaberg]

You're not playing

.

Yip Not playing your game anymore refer to previous post
As i have pointed out to you on (8 now) separate occasion, you are reading two separate parts of the act. One defines the intent ie what it means or is meant to mean. The the other what it covers in regards to possible parts if it fits the the first part being intent..
You want to take use one part in isolation. To prove some silly fantasy that you are soe legal expert when you are only a disgruntled owner of a now prohibited weapon soon to lose it.
For 8 occasions you have ignored this now, just as you will in the future.
You said this its clearly wrong might and could are not must and does.



yet you said this

http://legislation.govt.nz/bill/gove...est/whole.html
Suppressors - Gone.
Calibres/Ammunition - Gone.
Sport Shooting - Gone.
Optics/Sights - Gone.
To all those who laughed and said 'Oh, this won't affect me', May I suggest you work on your submissions?
They want to Ban 'Military Calibres' - so .308, .223, 7.62, 5.56, .338, .303, .30-06, .30-30 - Gone.
What will the law abiding Kiwi Firearm owners be left with?

None of what you originally said is correct even as deemed by what you are now trying to crow somehow proves you correct.



As for the lawyers and the gun lobby, you were attempting to you a few saying something similar as proof you were right. i merely pointed out you were in the minority.
Not only that lets see what your now refer to as being gun law experts said 3 years ago.
What you are confusing is people telling you what you want to hear what what is going to actually happen.

COLFO New Zealand already has world leading requirements for the legal use of firearms and largely all that can be done is done to prevent criminal misuse: COLFO is of the view that New Zealands’ legislation is world leading. For its cost, effectiveness and results the New Zealand framework is simply as good as it can be and remains comfortably fit for purpose. COLFO considers that its members and the public can and should take pride in the system

COLFO most emphatically rejects the contention that registration would be an effective tool to prevent criminal misuse of firearms which would be a pointless and costly waste of police effort and money.

COLFO rejects the contention that there are 100,000 firearms in illegal circulation in New Zealand
COLFO notes that one Black firearm in the wrong hands has much more potential for harm than a million firearms in the right hands.
Police estimate that firearms are involved in 1.3% of violent crimes in New Zealand, and less than .5% of total crime in the past five years. In other words, over 99% of crime does not involve a firearm. It also means that less than .0001% of firearms in this country will be used for a crime48. Police Commissioner Mike Bush observed49 in late 2015:

COLFO is not able to do anything more but make a “best/educated guess” as to the numbers involved. COLFO considers there to be as low as 10-20,000 Grey guns in New Zealand.

It is not altogether clear just how many firearms are stolen in New Zealand. Figures are sketchy and vague and COLFO cannot definitively say if this is the main source of illegal supply. Australian research concluded that in 2011 .047% of firearms were stolen from those legally held in New South Wales which is miniscule

COLFO knows that restrictions on one type of firearm will only prompt criminals to move to the use of another firearms type. Even Australia’s most vocal gun control advocate accepts that the banning of semi-automatic rifles in Australia has simply led to a spike in the criminal use of handguns

The manufacture of firearms: A crude firearm is not difficult to manufacture, and with higher degrees of skill much more sophisticated firearms can be produced73. Plans are readily available online with various degrees of sophistication74. As discussed below 3D printing may make the illegal manufacture of firearms simply a matter of downloading a file and pressing “print”. COLFO found plans to manufacture a firearm in three mouse clicks using google. In addition, legally held firearms, with some skill can be converted to a more sinister state. This is usually cutting them down, but very rarely much more. For example, Anthony Dixon murdered James Te Aute in Highland Park with a burst from a homemade .22 submachine gun75 . This is highly unusual and is the only case COLFO is aware of where a firearm has been illegally converted to fully automatic and used in a crime

Minority/Majority has nothing to do with the interpretation of the Law
.

really a judgement is made by accepting what a majorly of other similar decisions has been, This is based previous based on what the majority of people consider to be just and fair. Also juries are a majority decision
Crikey in some countries the DA and judges are even voted in or out.
In most countries the laws and acts as written are based on what the majority of people want based on the majority of the government that holds the majority that decides what laws and act are enacted.
Not only that the interpretation of the law in regards to what you were trying to say would need to have people being prosecuted for having a scope, and we all know that was never going to happen.

[TheDemonLord]

Yip Not playing your game anymore refer to previous post
As i have pointed out to you on (8 now) separate occasion, you are reading two separate parts of the act. One defines the intent ie what it means or is meant to mean. The the other what it covers in regards to possible parts if it fits the the first part being intent..
You want to take use one part in isolation. To prove some silly fantasy that you are soe legal expert when you are only a disgruntled owner of a now prohibited weapon soon to lose it.

Merely repeating yourself and never proving your point shows just how wrong and insecure you are.

As for the lawyers and the gun lobby, you were attempting to you a few saying something similar as proof you were right. i merely pointed out you were in the minority.

They are still right.... You've still yet to provide an example showing that the wording is correct, again, this is because you cannot, which proves the wording is terrible.

Not only that lets see what your now refer to as being gun law experts said 3 years ago.
What you are confusing is people telling you what you want to hear what what is going to actually happen.

Oh look! A bunch of out-of-context quotes, that will definitely prove what you are saying is true. Not to mention it's just classic misdirection, to avoid admitting you've got no clue.

really a judgement is made by accepting what a majorly of other similar decisions has been, This is based previous based on what the majority of people consider to be just and fair. Also juries are a majority decision

Actually, no. A Judgement is made against what is written in the Law. Do you remember when the Police got shutdown by the Highcourt for attempting to re-interpret the law? That was a Minority decision (since most people aren't a High Court judge)

Crikey in some countries the DA and judges are even voted in or out.

And? Are any of those countries New Zealand? No? More Misdirection...

In most countries the laws and acts as written are based on what the majority of people want based on the majority of the government that holds the majority that decides what laws and act are enacted.
Not only that the interpretation of the law in regards to what you were trying to say would need to have people being prosecuted for having a scope, and we all know that was never going to happen.

You are confusing the Legislature, Judiciary and the Executive. Three distinct and separate areas. Not surprising given how clueless you are.

The Legislature writes the Law.
The Executive Enforces the Law.
The Judiciary Interprets the Law.

Do I think the NZ Police will ban every single scope? No.
The problem is, could they ban any scope that fits onto a prohibited Firearm if they wanted to? Yes.

And that encompasses every single scope in the Country.

[Berries]

Funny, this thread used to be used for discussion on a variety of topics related to firearms but sometimes months would pass with no posts. Suddenly it's a hive of activity, including people who had not previously shown any interest which gives rise to the thought that they may not even own a firearm.

Laurel and Hardy come to mind.

[husaberg]

http://legislation.govt.nz/bill/gove...est/whole.html

Suppressors - Gone.
Calibres/Ammunition - Gone.
Sport Shooting - Gone.
Optics/Sights - Gone.

To all those who laughed and said 'Oh, this won't affect me', May I suggest you work on your submissions?

They want to Ban 'Military Calibres' - so .308, .223, 7.62, 5.56, .338, .303, .30-06, .30-30 - Gone.

What will the law abiding Kiwi Firearm owners be left with?

yet

That's cause you are wrong and refuse to admit it - for a more detailed explanation of why you are wrong (From COLFO's written submission):
art 1 Clause 4(3)(b) pg 6 – parts relating to a prohibited firearm are defined as now
including a butt, stock, silencer or sight. At Part 1 Clause 2C pg 7 a “prohibited part
means – (a) a part of a prohibited firearm” – we believe there are three possible
interpretations to the effect of clause 2C on clause 4(3)(b)
o The first is what we believe is the intent of the draft to prohibit parts “born as”
an MSSA part. An example would be a gas block or operating rod. However, it
would also include an extractor spring and possession of it would carry a more
serious penalty than assault.
o Then there are the parts that would fit both restricted firearms and standard
firearms. Such as a scope or other sight, a silencer or a stock. We query what
would happen if a person had possession of a prohibited part fitted to a standard
firearm?
o The most concerning interpretation being that any one of the now prohibited
firearm parts can be a prohibited part in its own right. The unintended
consequence is that every firearm has a stock and a sight so this could mean that
a firearm that is not a prohibited firearm may be classed prohibited because it
uses a prohibited part effectively making every firearm in the country a
prohibited firearm held without permit. We do not believe this is the intent of
the bill and request clarity on this aspect.

Funny isnt it all your own statement is wrong as stated by your own defined experts.
Yet you are claimig to be right all a long

Not only that you wish to pick and chose what colfo says
so exactly how in your warped mind can a submission for the Select Committee on the Illegal
Possession of Firearms in New Zealand not be relevent to the current of future firearms laws
https://www.parliament.nz/resource/e...e9bc22727ef15d
Adds back to ignore again

[TheDemonLord]

yet

Funny isnt it all your own statement is wrong as stated by your own defined experts.
Yet you are claimig to be right all a long

Indeed - remember when I said the Law was so vague as to potentially cover all Sights? Remember how I said it was badly worded? The last part is key, that the definition can be interpreted to include all Sights, there is nothing within the Legislation to limit that scope (Pun fully intended).

As COLFO says - they don't believe this to be the Intent, but as per the Law Society - when you are rushing legislation through and not taking the due diligence as demanded by something as complex and specialised as Firearm law, mistakes (such as the current wording) are inevitable.

Anyone with a basic understanding of Firearm operation can tell that the Legislation as written goes well beyond merely banning semi-autos.

Not only that you wish to pick and chose what colfo says
so exactly how in your warped mind can a submission for the Select Committee on the Illegal
Possession of Firearms in New Zealand not be relevent to the current of future firearms laws
https://www.parliament.nz/resource/e...e9bc22727ef15d
Adds back to ignore again

It's not relevant to the current Topic, nor can I be bothered going into the context around each statement to show how you are talking out of your Arse.

You decided if you are pro-stoning innocent people or an Islamophobe yet?

[RDJ]

There just ain't enough popcorn to be had.