SO then if he goes Guilty what is the max he is in for???Originally Posted by Fish
Want a balloon?
SO then if he goes Guilty what is the max he is in for???
Need something to do when not riding??? Come and learn to dance with us at www.cerocstars.co.nz
The instructions are simple...
So far......
You've been right tetchy lately, o fishy one. Need something?
Do you realise how many holes there could be if people would just take the time to take the dirt out of them?
e mare libertas
I could really use a joint and a shag right about now.
You volunteering?
kiwibiker is full of love, an disrespect.
- mikey
L-Plate Rider
Not that there is anything wrong with lesbians, some of my favorite fantasies feature lesbians. Just not Helen Clark!
There is a certain group of lefty man-haters who hold the balance of power in NZ at the moment, and they seem to be seeking to make all men pay for the sins of a few. Anything remotely 'fun' gets banned as anti-social.
Most of NZ should be over the PC shit by now, but unfortunately we don't seem to be.
Would you like some CANDY!?!?!
Yes, quite right. My bad.
Psyclepath
Or more recently the $800,000 the labour party ripped us for for, and in that instance the plod found a prima facie case.....this guy's white, male and has a few bob in his pocket therefore he's fair game. Sad.
Only a homo puts an engine back together WITHOUT making it go faster.
The instructions are simple...
Dover is closer AND he's not fussy...
Do you realise how many holes there could be if people would just take the time to take the dirt out of them?
e mare libertas
Up to $5,000 and/or up to 4 years imprisonment, max. Bear in mind that all sorts of offenses carry those sort of maximums, and you'll never see them imposed.
Arms Act 1983, section 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.
kiwibiker is full of love, an disrespect.
- mikey
L-Plate Rider
So in reality what we are saying, is that the section of the law that is fucked in this instance is that self-defence is not a lawful excuse.
We all know that self-defence should be a perfectly acceptable legal excuse, and we hope that the juries will see it as such, if we are unlucky enough to be in a similar situation. The media in general, as we well know, hates guns even more than they hate motorcycles, so they are always out to stir up trouble.
The fact remains though, that if you live in a democracy, you should be allowed to defend yourself, and be afforded the protection of the law to do it. Hope the guy gets a good jury.
Weapons of Mass Acceleration
The cops don't charge out of spitefulness.... they have a job to uphold the law and charge people based on the evidence for each complaint or case before them. The criminal/arms/drug/offences/traffic laws in NZ are wideranging and cover all sorts of things that we often don't even realise we are subject to (not that ignore is a defence).
They have a job to do and so do the courts. Given the circumstances it seems hard on the guy to charge him, given that he is in possession of a firearm inside a firearm store. I guess its a matter of the nature of that possession that required that charge to be laid.... I dunno. Maybe good case law will come out of it.
Buttered Chicken
I'm impressed. This thread seems to be running contrary to the normal practice of shit-flinging from twenty digital paces. It's great to see arguments being raised and considered. Shit, I think I'll have a joint and a shag to help manage the shock. Does Dover have any relatives in Wellington? By the way, you's making good sense Fishy.
e mare libertas
You're quite right. Self-defense is not a lawful reason to carry a firearm in NZ, and the law is that way by design. Put the question to a referendum, and I suspect you'd get a strong mandate to keep the law the way it is.
So shut your fool mouth about the law being 'fucked up'. You're not making any rational arguments against the current situation.
NZ law does not allow people to 'go forth armed' precisely because the general disarmament of the populace and the consequent easing of the load on our hospital emergency rooms every Saturday night is arguably worth the occasional mismatch of force between a criminal aggressor and his victim.
But give me no shit about oppressive governments taking over. We still have one of the highest rates of legal firearms ownership in the world, and I'm sure that in the gravest extreme, your average NZ citizen would not hesitate to 'repurpose' his Remington 7400.
If he had the pistol out to show it to a customer interested in (legally) purchasing it, well, heck, that's a pretty good defense. We may well yet find that that was the case!
However, firearms dealers waving loaded pistols around and/or stashing them in their pockets, just because they were, you know, there, is not such a hot defense.
kiwibiker is full of love, an disrespect.
- mikey
Loud and Uncouth
Good to see this thread has a reasonable amount of debate versus the large amount of rant this sort of topic seems to engender.
The guy will probably be charged but (fingers crossed) it will be dismissed, hopefully without the poor dude being too much out of pocket.
The good thing is the benchmark for shooting in self defence will be a little lower.
Winding up drongos, foil hat wearers and over sensitive KBers for over 14,000 posts...........
" Life is not a rehearsal, it's as happy or miserable as you want to make it"
Forum whore
Fish is 100% correct in his assessment and most of you guys are insisting on refusing to see the points of law being raised and examined in public.
The chap should not have had a loaded sidearm in a fully assembled, easily accessible, LOADED state. It is against the law. Handguns are controlled very tightly in NZ with very good reason, and ultimately a very good result - very few deaths (almost none) by handguns in NZ
If' he'd shot the guy with a rifle or shotgun at that range he probably would have killed him. Hobson's choice for the poor bugger, and I'm not saying I don't disagree wholly with the course of action he took, but he revealed that he had a locked and loaded handgun under the counter by doing it.
If a man is alone in the woods and there isn't a woke Hollywood around to call him racist, is he still white?
Weapons of Mass Acceleration
Do we know for a fact that it was pre-loaded and waiting use under the counter, or was it loaded as part of a customer demo when the numpty with the machete came into the store?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks