Gunshop employee charged

[Patrick]

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 prosection.

It'd be nice if it were.

Then we wouldnt have to sit and wait to be robbed/raped/whatever like meek little sheep then would we folks?

But there lies the problem... people would go out, and being the lazy farkers so many are, they can't even be bothered to lock a window or door... why lock away the readily accessable loaded firearms?? Burglar helps themselves to the supplied arsenal...

Good result by the way, but I feel this isn't then end, just yet...

[Storm]

Good result by the way, but I feel this isn't then end, just yet...

Aint that the truth. There'll be a few more chapters to this book

[Mr Merde]

......
Good result by the way, but I feel this isn't then end, just yet...

I definitely agree with you here. I feel as though the axe has lifted only to be weilded by something else.

Comes to something when you fear those who are supposed to serve.

Mr

[Patrick]

Nah...; just think it is an issue that should be decided by a judge, not a JP.... that's all...

[Winston001]

Then we wouldnt have to sit and wait to be robbed/raped/whatever like meek little sheep then would we folks?

What robbed/raped whatever? Where? NZ and indeed much of the developed world has experienced a decline in crime over the past 10 years. You are safer today than in 1996. http://www.stats.govt.nz/products-an...96-2005-mr.htm

What's different is that our media beat-up stories much more than they used to giving the impression that murders and rapists lie around every corner. It just aint so.

[Dave Lobster]

These figures are based on offences recorded by the New Zealand Police.

So, crime falls if the police record fewer offences?

The only category for which the rate increased was violence. In 2005, the rate of recorded violent crime was 118 offences per 10,000 population, a rise of 10 percent from 1996.

Looks like the muggers and rapists are round 10% more corners than ten years ago.

[ynot slow]

i was asked by the arms officer on renewal of my firearms licence define self defence,is probably if he comes at me with a knife or machete,golf club i could use reasonable force,to which he said if you had time to unlock rifle,unload ammo,load and fire would you fire,i said i'd be dead before i got to the gun cabinet,but if i could use firepower and life threatening i would.i suspect that most firearms shops would have access to a semi loaded firearm, should a drop kick want to take out his frustration on not being able to smack his kids,come into his shop and ask politely to use a .303,or menacingly grunt gimme a fucken shotgun or i'll kill ya,whilst wielding an axe.

[sAsLEX]

You are safer today than in 1996.

you reckon? The youth gang problem not visible through your rose coloured glasses? You miss the bit in the news where the cops suggested avoiding a certain area as they couldn't control the violent gang on the street?

[spudchucka]

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

The fact that the charge was laid under the Arms Act, not the Crimes Act should give people a big clue that it has nothing to do with the squeezing of the trigger and that section 48 was never part of the equation.

He would have been charge under section 45 of the Arms Act:

45 Carrying or possession of firearms, airguns, pistols, restricted weapons, or explosives, except for lawful, proper, and sufficient purpose

(1)Every person commits an offence and is liable on [conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 4 years or to a fine not exceeding $5,000] or to both who, except for some lawful, proper, and sufficient purpose,—

(a)Carries; or

(b)Is in possession of—

any firearm, airgun, pistol, restricted weapon, or explosive.

(2)In any prosecution for an offence against subsection (1) of this section in which it is proved that the defendant was carrying or in possession of any firearm, airgun, pistol, restricted weapon, or explosive, as the case may require, the burden of proving the existence of some lawful, proper, [and sufficient purpose] shall lie on the defendant.

So the question has always been whether the keeping of a loaded hand gun under a shop counter for the intended purpose of using it to shoot an attacker is lawful. It shouldn't make any difference under law if the shop is a gun shop or an antique dealer, the rules are the same for all.

[spudchucka]

So, crime falls if the police record fewer offences?

No. The true crime rate can never be known. The stats have only ever been a representation of reported crimes.

[Dave Lobster]

No. The true crime rate can never be known.

Are you suggesting that publishing these lists is pointless, and that the government is wasting our money trying to make us feel safer - thus strengthening their own position of power?

The stats have only ever been a representation of reported crimes.

Do we know for a fact that the police record all reported crime?

[scumdog]

Do we know for a fact that the police record all reported crime?

No, we don't know - but then we never have known throughout time.....it's a historical consistant feature of 'reported' crime

[Mr Merde]

No. The true crime rate can never be known. The stats have only ever been a representation of reported crimes.

Surely the question isnt wether or not the police publish the correct statistics regarding reported crime but wether the public are actually reporting the crimes.

Confidence in our police forces here and in other countries seems to be very low over the last few years.

Do people report "crimes" nowadays when the feel that very little will be done to remedy the situation.

The response times to burgalries, vehicle thefts etc do no inspire the public to report these things immediately. They will only be given a form and told to contact their insurance company.

Assaults, rapes and crimes of violence seem to be on the rise but the percieved response to them from the police forces hasnt risen proportionately. The case of the young girl up north sent a taxi when she rang about being assaulted springs to mind.

I know the average police officer on the job wants to do something to benifit the population but lately they are being hamstrung by their political masters who are either trying to make a name for themselves or for their particular viewpoint.

Too many people today see the police as a self funding revenue gatherer for the government (through road traffic enforcement) to really care about them in the role they were originally formed for, the protection of your populace from criminals.

I dont really think my ramblings have actuaslly conveyed what or how I feel correctly but close enough.

Back to the subject of this thread.

The case against Greg was a political one.

He seems to have won the battle ( so far)

but given that those who brought the charges have virtually unlimited funds (from our fine and taxes) I fully expect them to carry on with the persecution of this individual untikl they force a win over him. Someday, sometime they will make Greg suffer.

[spudchucka]

Are you suggesting that publishing these lists is pointless, and that the government is wasting our money trying to make us feel safer - thus strengthening their own position of power?



Do we know for a fact that the police record all reported crime?

1: No.

2: No way of knowing.

[spudchucka]

Surely the question isnt wether or not the police publish the correct statistics regarding reported crime but wether the public are actually reporting the crimes.

There are other methods available to assess the true crime rates, such as victimisation surveys. When you compare these to the actual reported crime stats it is quite alarming. The Govt & police management are fully aware of all this.

If every offence that every occurred was reported and recorded the current system would probably collapse under the strain.