Gunshop employee charged

**spudchucka** · 7th June 2007, 20:03

Originally Posted by ghost

For life it already is, "Crimes Act 1961. 48. "Self defence and defence of another - Every one is justified in using, in the defence of himself or another, such force as, in the circumstances as he believes them to be, it is reasonable to use.""

Police prosecutors should take a longer look at themselves before they decide to prosecute, it seems to be an automatic response if anyone but a police officer defends themselves, regardless of the situation.

I also believe you should be allowed to defend your property as well but thats a different kettle of fish.

The charge had nothing to do with the force used, section 48 clearly justifies it in the circumstances as you have pointed out. The charge was to do with the possession of the pistol, (under the counter in a loaded state) and whether it was lawful or not. This is something that the bone-headed public of NZ fail to comprehend and that the filthy media scum will not clearly portray because it doesn't make quite the same sensational news story.

**jrandom** · 7th June 2007, 20:13

Originally Posted by spudchucka

The charge had nothing to do with the force used...

I suspect that most of the folk who've bothered to read the thread have had this hammered into them by now. You'd hope so, anyway.

I'm not sure what the implication of what's happened now is, in terms of the legal position vis-a-vis storage and readiness of firearms. Probably nothing, since it didn't get to Court.

Curious that there was 'insufficient evidence'. I'd love to hear more details. I'll have to go for a visit and see how much Greg is willing to say on the subject...

**scumdog** · 7th June 2007, 20:14

Originally Posted by spudchucka

This is something that the bone-headed public of NZ fail to comprehend and that the filthy media scum will not clearly portray because it doesn't make quite the same sensational news story.

Sounds like most of what is heard/read on the media most of the time.

The most accurate item on them is the days TV programmes and the page numbers at the top of each page - MOST of the time.

**McJim** · 7th June 2007, 20:21

Originally Posted by scumdog

Sounds like most of what is heard/read on the media most of the time.

The most accurate item on them is the days TV programmes and the page numbers at the top of each page - MOST of the time.

I must protest - the recent wave of Ribena ads have been particularly accurate

seriously - I'm Glad Greg, Nicola and their family can breathe a sigh of relief and get on with their lives.

**Lias** · 7th June 2007, 21:45

Originally Posted by spudchucka

The charge had nothing to do with the force used, section 48 clearly justifies it in the circumstances as you have pointed out. The charge was to do with the possession of the pistol, (under the counter in a loaded state) and whether it was lawful or not. This is something that the bone-headed public of NZ fail to comprehend and that the filthy media scum will not clearly portray because it doesn't make quite the same sensational news story.

I certainly understsand the distinction, but I believe the prosectuion was still politically motivated to discourage people from keeping weapons in a state where its practical to use them for self defence.

Let me relate an anecdote I heard from Wolf awhile ago. When he was getting his license awhile ago he was asked what his position was on using firearms for self defence. He told the cop something along the lines that by the time he retrieved the firearm, bolt, and ammo form 3 seperate locked (as required) locations his entire family would be dead and the perps would be 10 km's away.

Which to be honest is a pretty valid point. The law needs to be changed to allow people to legally keep loaded firearms in an accessible location for self defence. Personally I'm all for allowing loaded shotguns and handguns to be kept in the house for self defence. Concealed carry is another law we need to introduce as well, If the police decide someone is fit and proper to posess firearms, the law should allow those people to be armed at all times for self defence.

PS: RM, your scarf was too gay for the police what makes you think its not too gay for dictatorship? :-P

**Dave Lobster** · 7th June 2007, 22:13

Originally Posted by Lias

Concealed carry is another law we need to introduce as well, If the police decide someone is fit and proper to posess firearms, the law should allow those people to be armed at all times for self defence.

You can now, can't you? Just join a gang..

**Lias** · 7th June 2007, 23:09

Originally Posted by Dave Lobster

You can now, can't you? Just join a gang..

Thats where the fit and proper comes into it

**Mr Merde** · 8th June 2007, 08:58

As someone who has been involved in the pistol shooting sports since 1982, I find this a very refreshing outcome.

I wish Greg and family well. I hope the politically minded arseholes who brought the charges against him get a right royal reaming (probably wont happen) and I hope that in the light of what has transpired that the government takes a long hard look at their policies on self defence and realise that they dont have any.

It was pointed out to me by fellow target shooters that if Greg had of been tried and found guilty, then having a firearm in a ready state would have been illegal at any time for any body. The question I was asked here was how would the police justify carrying a loaded firearm when not in direct need of one.

Any way a win for common sense. One of the very few.

Mr

**ghost** · 8th June 2007, 09:02

Originally Posted by spudchucka

The charge had nothing to do with the force used, section 48 clearly justifies it in the circumstances as you have pointed out. The charge was to do with the possession of the pistol, (under the counter in a loaded state) and whether it was lawful or not. This is something that the bone-headed public of NZ fail to comprehend and that the filthy media scum will not clearly portray because it doesn't make quite the same sensational news story.

Easy fella, my post was in a response to one saying we should be abe to defend ourself, which I believe (maybe wrongly) that under section 48 we can. I agree with you on the media and most of the bone headed population. Even yesterday the media were quoting that the charge was "illegal possesion of a firearm" which it wasnt. I thought the charge brought was "possesion of a firearm without a lawful purpose" or words to that effect. My only gripe is that I beleive it is a rather long bow for the prosecutors to charge a licenced firearm dealer, who was on a licenced premesis, contucting a licenced business, for possessing a firearm without a lawful purpose.

From what I have heard from the case I believe it should not have gotten as far as it should have, but then what do I know anyway

**Swoop** · 8th June 2007, 09:16

Fantastic result.
Most unusual for JP's to dismiss... (I wonder if the prosecution will appeal to the high court for a review of the decision?)

Greg and Ray were on Campbell Live last night. It was stated the gun was not loaded and "ready to fire" but was close to being so.

Originally Posted by shafty

Great outcome - tho as others have said so well, should never have gotten to this stage. Does anyone have an e-mail address for a message of Congrats for the Guy?

http://www.guns.co.nz/defense.html

**jrandom** · 8th June 2007, 09:29

Originally Posted by Swoop

Greg and Ray were on Campbell Live last night. It was stated the gun was not loaded and "ready to fire" but was close to being so.

The pistol was probably a 1911, so I imagine it would have been stored in Jeff Cooper's 'Condition 3' - empty chamber, magazine inserted, hammer down. That's the canonical state to have a 1911 in to balance readiness and safety when it's not being carried.

Or so I've heard.

But then, perhaps it wasn't a 1911. Ray does like his Glock 21s...

[Edit: Why do I get the feeling, though, that if it'd been a Glock, the media would've been all 'Glock Glock Glock!'?]

**Dave Lobster** · 8th June 2007, 09:48

Originally Posted by Fish

[Edit: Why do I get the feeling, though, that if it'd been a Glock, the media would've been all 'Glock Glock Glock!'?]

Because glocks are mentioned in rap records.. so its likely to be one of only a handful of brands recognisable to the retarded masses. Hence, a newsworthy story that can 'relate' to the intended audience.

**Winston001** · 8th June 2007, 12:26

I'm surprised at this result. It isn't lawful to have a loaded firearm available for "just-in-case" self-defense. If it was, we could all sit around with loaded shotguns sprinkled through our houses and workplaces.

Furthermore it is as rare as finding a hen's tooth for JPs to dismiss a prosecution.

**Dave Lobster** · 8th June 2007, 14:08

Originally Posted by Winston001

I'm surprised at this result. It isn't lawful to have a loaded firearm available for "just-in-case" self-defence. If it was, we could all sit around with loaded shotguns sprinkled through our houses and workplaces.

It'd be nice if it were.