The Great Firearm snatch and grab

[Packhorse]

It’s not being as done to death as much as I thought it might be....or are people in shock and having a cry in the corner....? Say the price for ‘poor’ condition Browning BAR though....worth more then that surely..??


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[tetawa]

Had to buy a BAR bolt carrier last year, on their payment prices it would be cheaper to buy the whole firearm. The sporting type semi mag prices are shockers also. Dealer wanted $249 for a Mark 2 BAR mag, their offering about $50. The good money is for the AR etc mags, must be putting more urgency into their removal from the public arena.

[Scribe]

Below "Gun owners according to Police".
Its cant be called a buyback cause they never owned them for a start. It is a CONfiscation.
Had a disagreement with local Cop."He says owning a firearm is a privilege". I say no one told me that when I joined the Army. They slung me an SLR and said this is your rifle. Look after it and it will look after you and now you are going to Vietnam to stop all those nasty Communists from coming down and taking over our Country.
AND I have carried one ever since and that is how I made my living. The carriage of Firearms is not a privilege to me. They are the tools of my trade. British law states that the tools of a mans trade shall not be taken from him as he will not be able to support himself or his family.
https://www.facebook.com/NZPoliceAssoci ... =3&theater

[Packhorse]

Firearms are certainly a part of my income stream too....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JWB]

The Act party has released a campaign for fair firearms laws. They claim to have been talking to the firearms community.

Since April, ACT, in consultation with the gun community, has been developing a firearms policy.

https://fairfirearmlaws.act.org.nz/
I was not aware that there was any such animal. On reading the policy it appears that this community realizes that it must accept more restrictions on its activities in the name of public safety. Bullshit; Sellout; Appeasement; Colfo written all over it.
I've sent a note to Mr Seymour suggesting some positive changes to his policy.

Hello David,
I intend to vote Act this coming election. This is because I wish to punish all politicians who declared firearms owners criminal, and changed NZ’s firearms laws without consultation and normal due process. Because they used a tragedy to implement a pre-established agenda to remove firearms from public ownership and curtail free speech.

I will not join your campaign for fair and reasonable firearms laws as it is merely another con.

All firearms legislation is an imposition on law- abiding firearms owners. By definition if only effects the law-abiding. It creates a bureaucracy to employ bureaucrats, that multiply and expand to choke personal freedom, recreation, sport, and the pleasure of living. Firearms legislation has never made any country safer to live in, it generally makes for a more dangerous society, where criminals know that their victims are disarmed, and do not have access to the means of self-defence. In our upside-down world, citizens are prosecuted by the state for successful self-defence, or for merely possessing the means to self-defence. Our bureaucrats revel in persecuting the victim.

All crime, including crimes using a firearm are dealt with, prosecuted under the Crimes Act 1961. The arms act is only used to persecute licence holders for regulatory offences. It is used by police bureaucrats to punish those who survive a murder attempt by defending themselves. As an example, an Auckland gun-shop owner was attacked by a man wielding a sword, and managed to shoot and stop the attack with a pistol that was to hand. After an unsuccessful attempt to prosecute under the Crimes act for wounding the criminal, police then used the provisions of the Arms Act to charge the shopkeeper with not having secured the pistol in a locked safe and removed his firearms licence and dealers licence. Perhaps a chat to Steven Franks about his amendment to the 2005 arms amendment would be in order.

You have an opportunity to increase your party presence in parliament, but you seem determined to squander this opportunity. I don’t know who you are talking to, that you consider represents the “firearms community” that is suggesting that firearms owners recognize the need for more controls on their activities, but they are lying to you.There is no firearms community. Just individuals who have a firearms licence to hunt, feed themselves, earn an income, pursue an enjoyable recreational activity, and/or protect the lives of themselves and their loved ones. Individuals who have been attacked by this parliament.

The firearm policy that you are proposing is not a vote winner. It is appeasement for the gun haters, and has no appeal to either the gun-haters or gun-owners. Worse, it is likely the same policy that National will come out with in future, so instead of securing votes you will allow Nat voters to return home as there is no difference.

If you want to get the attention of a ¼ million licence holders and their families and friends, I suggest your policy should be to repeal all firearms legislation that has amended the 1983 act. Promise to return to the 1983 act. Re-instate the lifetime licence that was stolen in 1992. Emphasize that this will free up police from bureaucratic chores supervising the law-abiding, to investigating crime that can be prosecuted under the crimes act. That would be a difference that might secure you some solid support rather than the one-off protest vote such as I am going to give you.

Further policy should look at the registry items in the 1983 act with a view to removing them. e.g. the requirement for dealers to keep a register for 5 years on all firearms that come into or leave their possession. Such clauses only encourage the building of the police bureaucracy.

This would get you needed publicity and possibly an increase in your party and electorate vote. It’s not what I want as policy, as I favour the complete repeal of all firearms legislation, as all crime is prosecuted under the Crimes Act 1961, but it is what I think would be acceptable to the bulk of NZ firearms owners.

kind regards,

[Scribe]

A really good statement JWB. That twerp, and I cant think of a better name for him did not even turn up to vote when all the other parties were selling us down the drain. National/Light.

[Packhorse]

Doesn’t give us many options to vote for then doesn’t it..??


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Kiwigunguy]

Doesn’t give us many options to vote for then doesn’t it..??


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'd still recommend voting ACT. They were the only ones to stand up for us when it counted.
The other parties can say what they like, but where were they when we needed them to stand up for us?
The new parties have no chance of making 5%, so if you want to make a difference it has to be ACT.

Also, their firearms policy is not set in stone. They are still taking consultation.
If you want to give them your feedback, just email them at: james.mcdowall@act.org.nz.

If enough of us tell them to sort out their policy, they will.