Gunshop employee charged

[davereid]

I feel a bit like all I'm doing is quoting others tonight. But the law is not always right - remember it was OK to enslave blacks, kill abos and beat women.

A strict observance of the written laws is doubtless ONE of the duties of a good citizen, but it is not THE HIGHEST. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation. To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to written law, would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the end to the means."
-- Thomas Jefferson

I'm not sure he did break the law - all we know is that he was able to produce a loaded firearm in a few seconds.

But laws that reduce your ability to defend yourself in an increasingly violent society should be treated with the respect they deserve.

[Big Dog]

I feel a bit like all I'm doing is quoting others tonight. But the law is not always right - remember it was OK to enslave blacks, kill abos and beat women.

An important factor here is the question of how much reason did he have to believe that he would need a firearm in a loaded state that day or does he break the law every day?

Lets say he has worked at the store for 1 year.
minus weekends and holidays thats 200+ times that he has knowingly "strapped one on" in direct violation of a law.

I do not see how this is a legit form of protest if there has been no attempt to change the law. In the absence of an attempt to change the law that is premeditation. He saw the law. New the law. Actively chose not to adhere to the law.

This is no different to a person who speeds every day complaining because they were caught once.

If as has been suggested in one of the many earlier posts (don't you people have jobs?) he held a valid license (F?) to carry a concealed weapon the question then becomes why is he being charged. Does the law relating to gun shops explicitly take away that right?

[davereid]

We don't know that he was carrying do we ?

As I understand it all we know is that he managed to obtain and load a firearm in a short period of time. We dont even know how long it took him.

I will watch the case carefully - was he carrying a loaded gun ? - in which case he has broken the law - but maybe the law should be reviewed. But I don't think its yet proven he was carrying the firearm that day. If there is other info please let me know.

[jrandom]

An important factor here is the question of how much reason did he have to believe that he would need a firearm in a loaded state that day or does he break the law every day? ... I do not see how this is a legit form of protest if there has been no attempt to change the law.

You make an excellent point here, which gets to the core of the matter.

valid license (F?) to carry a concealed weapon...

This wafts of bullshit. No such thing in NZ as a licence allowing Joe Public to carry concealed.

don't you people have jobs?

[Big Dog]

This wafts of bullshit. No such thing in NZ as a licence allowing Joe Public to carry concealed.

Much as I thought. Was not screening 5 pages looking for the one post though.

[McJim]

You make an excellent point here, which gets to the core of the matter.
This wafts of bullshit. No such thing in NZ as a licence allowing Joe Public to carry concealed.

It would waft of bullshit if it had not been mis-quoted. The gunshop has an F licence due to the fact that it has a shooting range contained therein. This class of licence allows them to have a range and also to use it - hence the implicit permission to have a loaded weapon on the premises.

I shall be watching the case with interest - as some other KBers have expressed a wish to assist - Please PM me and I will send you the bank details for the Greg Carvell defence Fund.

[Ixion]

This wafts of bullshit. No such thing in NZ as a licence allowing Joe Public to carry concealed.

So, how about when we get one of those foreign big wigs visiting. Accompanied by numerous bodyguard types all sporting dark glassess and bulges under the arm?

Either they are issued some sort of licence or the police decide not to enforce the law. If the latter they could do the same for Mr Carvell.

[Pixie]

On "sunday" last night:It seems the weapon was "in a semi loaded state,for protection in the shop"
The cop interviewed was a nob-"you can defend yourself but can't provide yourself with a weapon to do so"
Said no comment a lot

[Dooly]

On "sunday" last night:It seems the weapon was "in a semi loaded state,for protection in the shop"
The cop interviewed was a nob-"you can defend yourself but can't provide yourself with a weapon to do so"
Said no comment a lot

The cop looked very uncomfortable trying to answer the questions.

[Pixie]

So, how about when we get one of those foreign big wigs visiting. Accompanied by numerous bodyguard types all sporting dark glassess and bulges under the arm?

Either they are issued some sort of licence or the police decide not to enforce the law. If the latter they could do the same for Mr Carvell.

The latter

[McJim]

So, how about when we get one of those foreign big wigs visiting. Accompanied by numerous bodyguard types all sporting dark glassess and bulges under the arm?

Either they are issued some sort of licence or the police decide not to enforce the law. If the latter they could do the same for Mr Carvell.

I suspect that they probably would have done had the case not received so much publicity from the word go. Once the general public is made aware that someone got shot people demand answers and there are probably a lot of people who want people held responsible for discharging a firearm at another human being. (The more vocal people are the ones who believe he was right to shoot the fella).

And I'm quite close to the facts on this one and cannot believe how much inaccurate info people (and the media) have got hold of.

We'll see how it goes eh?

As I've said before if you wish to assist Greg then I'll PM the Greg Carvell Defence Fund Account details to anyone who asks.

[Hitcher]

The cop looked very uncomfortable trying to answer the questions.

That's because the matter is before the Court. Inappropriate public discussion may prejudice the likelihood of a fair trial.

[Dai]

That's because the matter is before the Court. Inappropriate public discussion may prejudice the likelihood of a fair trial.

As though the press coverage to date hasnt already.

[Dooly]

That's because the matter is before the Court. Inappropriate public discussion may prejudice the likelihood of a fair trial.

I realise that.

But he looked especially uncomfortable than they normally would in that situation, especially when asked what HE would do in that situation.

[Dai]

I realise that.

But he looked especially uncomfortable than they normally would in that situation, especially when asked what HE would do in that situation.

He would have used a Tazer or pepper spray. You know the non lethal deterant that is too dangerous for the public to have.