Gunshop employee charged

**The_Dover** · 14th November 2006, 09:17

well, it was just as well he had a fuckin loaded gun in his possesion.

otherwise he'd look like he'd been indecently assaulted by edward scissorhands.

**McJim** · 14th November 2006, 09:20

So the law states that firearms should be kept locked and unloaded...could start a nice little 'loaded crossbow and couple of spare katanas' trend to circumvent that issue.

Are we sure that the gun shop employee is not capable of retrieving a gun and loading one shell and firing that shell at said attacker while others present distract the offender with conversation?

After all - it was a revolver not an semi auto wasn't it....

Last time I mentioned this Sniper reckoned it was pretty feasible that if the gun was not locked (as can be understandable in a gun shop) and ammunition was at hand (but not in a chamber) that the defender could easily have loaded and fired a single round.

All depends on the statement he gave to Police at the time of the "offence"

**jrandom** · 14th November 2006, 10:26

Originally Posted by spudchucka

Why would it be loaded as part of a customer demo? Was he just going to pop off acouple of rounds into the back wall to show his customer how the weapon functions?

Most of the Auckland gun shops have a test-firing room with one of those nifty shoot-into-the-rubber-balls backstop boxes. It'd be reasonable for a purchaser to want to feel recoil and trigger pull etc if they were going to lay down significant bucks on a nice new 1911 for next week's IPSC match.

Although, since the media just keeps saying "45 caliber", maybe it was a big shiny revolver in .45 Long Colt. I haven't heard anything definitive on that subject.

SAI do keep a fair bit of ammo stacked on shelves behind the counter. Might have been possible in that timeframe to turn around, grab a cartridge, load and fire something that had just been legitimately removed from under the glass-topped counter (which is where SAI display pistols). I doubt it, though.

There were customers in the shop, though, as far as I'm aware, so I guess there won't be much bullshitting going on. Whatever happened, happened. Speculation will be unnecessary after the evidence is presented.

**Patrick** · 14th November 2006, 10:27

Too true, but too many on here rely on the "facts" presented by the media as gospel, the same media who are well known for not letting the facts get in the way of a good story.

**The_Dover** · 14th November 2006, 10:33

Originally Posted by Fish

Most of the Auckland gun shops have a test-firing room with one of those nifty shoot-into-the-rubber-balls backstop boxes. It'd be reasonable for a purchaser to want to feel recoil and trigger pull etc if they were going to lay down significant bucks on a nice new 1911 for next week's IPSC match.

what that? International Pig Shooting Contest?

I'm gonna go in there and say i'm looking for a new cop killa, what have you got?

**jrandom** · 14th November 2006, 10:36

Originally Posted by The_Dover

what that? International Pig Shooting Contest?

IPSC is what happens when you take competitive target shooting, add extra coolness and practicality, and leave it to sit overnight.

**The_Dover** · 14th November 2006, 10:50

Originally Posted by Dynamytus50

they may start arming themselves which would cause all sorts of problems.

for who? the dicks that try to rob them??

what would have happened if he had not been armed? he'd be fucked

what would have happened if the dick hadn't tried to rob him? fuck all and you dumb shits wouldn't even know he had a loaded weapon in there, if indeed he did.

**Swoop** · 14th November 2006, 10:54

Originally Posted by crazybigal

All we heard about was the shooting not the gun and how it was kept.

This is why I have asked our KB community to come up with some facts, but alas we do not have anyone coming forward with more precise information.

Originally Posted by Ixion

Attempted murder would have been a jury trial. I understand that he has no right to trial by jury for the charge laid.

I would guess he has the right to go "judge alone", or jury trial with these charges.

**jrandom** · 14th November 2006, 11:15

Originally Posted by The_Dover

for who? the dicks that try to rob them??

Sigh.

Do you want shopkeepers to be allowed to arm themselves? Do you want the local dairy owner to have a 12-gauge under the counter and start plugging glue sniffers who walk in dragging baseball bats? What about the day that someone walks in just before closing time and cross-eyed Joe Patel who was up all last night with the new baby gets nervous and fills him fulla buckshot when all he wanted was a Diet Coke?

Gotta have one law for all.

**The_Dover** · 14th November 2006, 11:17

I have no problem with shooting poofs that drink diet soft drinks or glue sniffers.

**McJim** · 14th November 2006, 11:25

Originally Posted by Dynamytus50

WTF Did a magic fairy tell you that??

Your all getting upset in the fact that Police have charged someone for shooting someone who had a machete, thats bullshit he has already been cleared and not charged for it.

He has been charged with having a loaded gun on him, a .45 cal semi auto pistol for no reasonable reason. He knew that he is not supposed to have any weapon together with ammo let alone loaded and within his direct grasp in his shop.

He fucked up by having a firearm loaded and ready for action, if it was allowed to be overlooked Police would be condoning it. That could lead to other gun shop owners or general store owners assuming Police will overlook the law and they may start arming themselves which would cause all sorts of problems.

Shouldn't you be using the word "Allegedly" in there somewhere D50? He hasn't yet been convicted of having the gun loaded...innocent until proven guilty remember? Or are we really living in a 3rd world police state after all?

Try to be more judicious with your comments - you have more to lose from a slip of the tongue than we have.

As I've said - how does one 'prove' when the gun was loaded. If there is no proof that he didn't load the gun at the time of the incident then he cannot reasonably be found guilty and should raise an action for expenses, loss of earnings and defamation of character.

**ManDownUnder** · 14th November 2006, 11:46

Originally Posted by The_Dover

I have no problem with shooting poofs that drink diet soft drinks or glue sniffers.

especially the caffeine free ones... I mean that's just not just. It's like duck sex... fucking near water!

Re arming themselves... it'll be an interesting case for sure. Both sides appear have a compelling argument.
What would have happened if the gun wasn't loaded...? The gunshop owner might have one less employee toda, as well as a dead theif (he was stealing it to top himself wasn't he?)

vs, he broke the law... loaded gun ready to go, the fish and dynamo argument.

I'm curious to see which way it comes out, but either way the guy in the shop deserves some reasonable access to resources to defend himself.

**The_Dover** · 14th November 2006, 11:47

Originally Posted by Dynamytus50

Who gives a fuck if Police would of known or not, its still the law and when Police detect it has been broken Police have to be consistent.

tui anyone?

**Ixion** · 14th November 2006, 11:51

Originally Posted by Fish

Sigh.

Do you want shopkeepers to be allowed to arm themselves?

Yes

Do you want the local dairy owner to have a 12-gauge under the counter and start plugging glue sniffers who walk in dragging baseball bats?

Yes

What about the day that someone walks in just before closing time and cross-eyed Joe Patel who was up all last night with the new baby gets nervous and fills him fulla buckshot when all he wanted was a Diet Coke?

Gotta have one law for all.

Except Helen ?

And ten effing chars to you too.