A silly complaint

May 23rd, 2014 at 11:00 am by David Farrar

10154197_622125081198582_2815770606911495695_n

Photo from Judith Collins on Facebook.

The Herald reports:

A photo op of Justice Minister firing a pistol has led to a complaint to the police watchdog.

The National Shooters Association said Mrs Collins had broken the law because was not licensed to the use the weapon and had shot a pistol outside of a gun club.

A picture of the minister firing the gun at an ESR testing facility last month was placed on her Facebook page.

Association spokesman Richard Lincoln complained to Police Minister Anne Tolley, who referred the matter to police.

When police said they would not intervene because Mrs Collins had been supervised at the time, Mr Lincoln wrote a letter to the Independent Police Conduct Authority.

He said he had laid the complaint because he wanted “one law for all”.

“We, as civilian gun owners, don’t want to have these laws imposed on us with what appears to be politicians taking liberties and exemptions that they’re not entitled to.”

How silly. She was under Police supervision. I don’t have a license but I’ve shot a gun under the supervision of someone who does.

He was also asked about Mrs Collins’ ownership of a taser, which usually required a special licence.

“You’d have to ask her. She’s never used it on me, so I’m not aware of her having one.”

Mrs Collins, a former Police Minister, said the taser was non-operational and was stored in a perspex box.

She said it could not be charged up, “although it would be tempting occasionally to be able to”.

Heh.

UPDATE: I understand the complainant, Mr Lincoln, has filed a previous complaint against Judith Collins. He alleged she was wielding a taser without authorisation. In fact she was wielding a powerpoint projector remote control. Oh dear.

Tags:

78 Responses to “A silly complaint”

  1. Manolo (13,837 comments) says:

    It would interesting to know the political affiliations of the complainant? Labour or Green? Take your pick.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 26 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Pauleastbay (5,035 comments) says:

    ESR not a gun club but an authorized facility.

    Fuck wits like Lincoln just make it so much harder for us who own firearms.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 31 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Tookinator (221 comments) says:

    But did she fire it? Maybe she just posed with the gun?

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Pauleastbay (5,035 comments) says:

    Labour clearly, a wee committee man

    Vote: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. b1gdaddynz (279 comments) says:

    Oh man I am in big trouble then; I fired an M60 when I was 8 without a gun license!

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. mjw (396 comments) says:

    It’s not silly at all dpf. I don’t blame Judith Collins for this and can’t see that a prosecution is in the public interest. But that doesn’t change the fact that it may have been against the law.

    So if it is against the law, then change the law. The idea that we should instead allow the police to disregard the law if they feel like it is insidious. It works very well for the powerful in society, and very badly for the vulnerable.

    Please support the rule of law. We need equality before the law, rather then relying on grace and favour from the police.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 9 Thumb down 28 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Pauleastbay (5,035 comments) says:

    http://www.nzhuntingandshooting.co.nz/f32/anyone-member-ssanz-nz-nsa-4893/index3.html

    Oh dear read Mr Lincoln on here, goose or big fucking goose , I’ll let you decide

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff-nation/8158213/Arms-Act-changes-flawed-folly
    and here

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Pauleastbay (5,035 comments) says:

    and relating to the above comment of mine, what sad sack poses with dead fucking goats?

    Appears Richard may be in the house, if so, anyone quoting Heston on ” ..taking my gun from my cold dead hands ” confirms it for me you shouldn’t be allowed any where within miles of a firearm

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. gump (1,650 comments) says:

    It’s very bad form for a Minister to openly flout the law.

    One law for me, another law for thee.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 6 Thumb down 22 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ mjw (113 comments) says:
    May 23rd, 2014 at 11:11 am

    Please support the rule of law. We need equality before the law, rather then relying on grace and favour from the police.

    I agree, our MP’s from all sides are there to represent the people and should obey the letter of the law, and should not get off breaches of the law just because of who they are.

    However, I do think this complaint is somewhat silly, but if it was reversed and it was a Labour MP that had done the same, there would still be those calling for blood. Such are our political times!!

    This part does worry me though – Owning a taser, even a non-operational one, and even when kept in a box, I thought was against the law? And begs the question – if they are illegal to bring into the country, then how/where was it sourced? Do police give away tasers that no longer work, and what are the chances of getting one fixed? Which raises another question – how do police dispose of this sort of equipment that should not get into the hands of the general public? How safe is the box and if stolen, could it be repaired and used on some victim of a crime?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 18 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. backster (2,174 comments) says:

    Judith is becoming something of a recidivist, first she has a drink of milk , and now she is caught out publicising a firearms testing facility. What next maybe she will be exposed impersonating Father Christmas.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 14 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. anticorruptionnz (215 comments) says:

    Ordinary mortals have been locked up for less

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 17 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. b1gdaddynz (279 comments) says:

    I read my comment and thought I should give some context lest you think I am claiming to be a young Rambo. It was attached to an APC at Linton Army Camp under military supervision on a family open day; my dad was CO.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. OneTrack (3,114 comments) says:

    Mr Lincoln is just another example that the PC idiots are winning.

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. RRM (9,933 comments) says:

    DPF:
    How silly. She was under Police supervision. I don’t have a license but I’ve shot a gun under the supervision of someone who does.

    Come now, DPF, Helen Clark’s speeding motorcade was under police supervision too and that didn’t stop you whining bitterly about it! ;-)

    This guy has a valid point, but REALLY… all this “we’ve got to catch Judith Collins out on some technicality” shit is starting to look as every bit as sad and desperate as the “there’s got to be some dirt on John Key around here somewhere” shit does.

    Vote: Thumb up 21 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. dime (9,980 comments) says:

    can any of you lefties with an axe to grind point to another case in NZ like this?

    where someone has posted a pic of them shooting a gun without a license on social media and have then been charged by the cops?

    thanks

    Vote: Thumb up 18 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. bushbasher (16 comments) says:

    How silly. She was under Police supervision. I don’t have a license but I’ve shot a gun under the supervision of someone who does.

    @DPF The rules around using a rifle and a pistol are quite different. A rifle can be used, broadly speaking, anywhere it is safe, and by anyone, so long as they are under “direct supervision” of somebody with a firearms license. A pistol can only be shot at a pistol club range. Somebody without a pistol lisc. can shoot a pistol, and in fact you have to be a member of a pistol club for 6 months(?) before you can get a pistol license.

    But hey how many politicians have operated a digger on a sod turning ceremony without a T endorsement on their drivers license? Play with heavy machinery? been into hazardous workplaces without a site induction? Watch out for that PC brigade!

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 22 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. tas (625 comments) says:

    I think the point of the complaint is that, if what she did is technically illegal, then it’s a stupid law that should be repealed. Clearly it should be legal to use a gun while under supervision.

    The complaint is coming from the National Shooters Association. They don’t want to prosecute her for using a gun, they want to pressure the govt to repeal this silly law.

    If the justice minister publicly flouts a law while surrounded by police officers, then clearly the law is not being enforced and it should be scrapped.

    Unfortunately, the complaint seems to have backfired even though the intentions make sense.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ backster (2,019 comments) says:
    May 23rd, 2014 at 11:25 am

    Actually the gun part doesn’t worry me, she was under supervision, although I do wonder what sort of message the image was meant to portray when she posted it on her page – but all that aside, what I am concerned about is the ownership of the taser.

    A seemingly innocent article, non-operational and in a box? In a box where? Could it be sourced in a burglary, and could it be repaired and made operational? AND… how do the police dispose of these items? surely there are rules?

    Of course, a seemingly stupid comment by me – until suddenly someone innocent gets zapped by a tazer welding criminal and we all ask – “how the hell did they get that” when such objects can only be bought into NZ by the Police?

    And before someone says it was non-operational – in what way was it non-operational, and could the parts removed to make it that way, be sourced to make it work again – almost anything is possible in this day and age – and if our police have the habit of discarding all their non-working ones in this manner – surely spare parts wouldn’t be hard to come by.

    Tasers are something I would not like to see become readily available to our criminal element.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 18 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Sir Cullen's Sidekick (890 comments) says:

    Gone by lunch time….

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ Sir Cullen’s Sidekick (635 comments) says:
    May 23rd, 2014 at 11:51 am

    Yeah, so we keep hearing … but then I guess each day has a lunchtime … I think “gone when she is good and ready to go” might be a better guess.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. rouppe (971 comments) says:

    It may be a silly complaint however Police have no hesitation in pursuing convictions on equally silly grounds.

    Fact: The Arms Act 50(1)(a) says:
    “Every person commits an offence … who is in possession of a pistol and is not a person authorised or permitted, expressly or by implication, by or pursuant to this Act, to be in possession of that pistol”
    A defense is 50(5):
    “It is a good defence to a prosecution for an offence against subsection (1)(a) if the defendant proves—
    (a)that the pistol was in his possession for use both
    (i)on the range of an incorporated pistol club for the time being recognised by the Commissioner for the purposes of section 29; and
    (ii)under the immediate supervision of the holder of a firearms licence bearing an endorsement permitting that person to have possession of that pistol or a pistol of that kind; and
    (b)that at all times while the defendant was in possession of the pistol he was both on such a range and under the immediate supervision of such a person.”

    So for a pistol being under supervision isn’t enough under the law.

    However Police took me to court for “encroaching on a flush median” under 2.7 of the Road User Rules. I proved: that I turned right from the flush median; That the law has no prescription over how long one may be on the flush median when intending to turn right; That the other (main traffic) lane was fully occupied, congested and at a stop/crawl; That I never re-entered the flow of traffic before turning right.

    However the judge JP decided that I was on the flush median “too long” and convicted me anyway, totally flying in the face of the law as written.

    I like Judith Collins, but I get totally pissed off with Police making law up as they go.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Hamish_NZ (46 comments) says:

    It’s not a silly complaint, what’s silly is the law in the first place, and the fact a sitting justice minister and former Police minister got herself snapped breaking the law.
    If I had done the same I’d be prosecuted, so the same should happen to Collins. But then a conviction and discharge as the punishment, given that she was unnder some sort of professional supervision and the risk to the public was very low. If that means she loses her ministerial warrant for a while so be it. But she can be rehabilitated.
    No point shooting the messanger for pointing out the law breach. A breach is a breach.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. tvb (4,430 comments) says:

    Making a joke of this utterly silly complaint is the best way through for the Minister.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. rangitoto (247 comments) says:

    “Come now, DPF, Helen Clark’s speeding motorcade was under police supervision too and that didn’t stop you whining bitterly about it! ;-)”

    There’s a big difference between discharging a firearm under supervision at a designated test facility versus speeding on a public road putting citizens in danger. One is a technicality, the other reckless criminal behaviour.

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. queenstfarmer (782 comments) says:

    The Act has an exception for “a person working in any forensic laboratory or facility that provides forensic services to the Police” (section 3). The Minister was working – she wasn’t there on holiday – in the forensic lab when she fired the pistol. She was legitimately test firing the pistol, in the course of her duties, in a forensic lab.

    The defence rests.

    Vote: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Jack5 (5,137 comments) says:

    Lincoln is playing hunter- shooter politics. His claim of illegality is nonsense, is trivial, and is political.

    You have to wonder whether this is some sort of “got you back” play in response to moves to clamp down on assault-rifle style weapons being used for hunting etc. Do the pistol shooting clubs agree with Lincoln on this? There are a hell of a lot of NZ shooters who will reject Lincoln in his complaint about the Minister.

    Here’s what Lincoln posted in January of last year on the “huntingandshooting” net forum (I have highlighted the words about his action against the police):

    Thankyou for your series of Replys … (name deleted by Jack5). 

    Civilian gun owners widely supported and financed the resistance and court case which ruled against the police attempts to legislate sporting firearms into an MSSA category. A small minority criticised the legal action I took against police. I respect the right of anyone to acquiescence but it is not something I would do. I think the judgment of the High Court is sufficient to settle any argument about the rights and wrongs of the ‘save our butts’ court case. I was in fact surprised by the positivity and saw very little in the way of negativity.

    We agree with you that there is no direct order of confiscation on the agenda. We did not suggest that there was. We believe that civilian gun owners will face restrictions in 2013 and many will be faced with the choice of dispossesing themself of their firearm(s). If they hand the firearms to police (as police will surely suggest) there will almost certainly be no compensation and the firearms will be destroyed and therefore unable to be reclaimed once the regulations are struck out by the High Court or the law is changed after the next election. We therefore encourage people to comply with the law by dispossessing themself of their firearm by storing it buried out of harms way and presevered for saftey in cosmoline. Once NSA has succeeded in getting the regulations struck off or the law changed, gun owners will be able to repatriate their firearms. It is worth mentioning that there is no government warehousing option that has been made available; all guns surrendered to police in these circumstances are permanently surrendered and destroyed: too late to get the family heirloom or favourite sentimentally valued rifle back once its been through the police crusher in the Lower Hutt armoury.

    This is not like the land taken in Zimbabwe by Mugabe. Once Mugabe has gone the white farmers can return home and reclaim their titles. In our case the property taken is destroyed forever. Rivers, Perry and Taylor and co will eventually go, but that will not return the rifle that I bequeath to my son or grandson.

    If you have some other useful suggestion as to what effected civilian gun owners ought to do to comply with the pending regulations, we would be grateful for your constructive comments.

    Kind Regards
    Richard Lincoln

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Sideoiler (74 comments) says:

    @ dime 11:37
    “can any of you lefties with an axe to grind point to another case in NZ like this?

    where someone has posted a pic of them shooting a gun without a license on social media and have then been charged by the cops?

    thanks”
    I recall the police charging a man after Camera House forwarded pictures he had them develop

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. Elaycee (4,393 comments) says:

    A silly complaint

    Ain’t that the truth.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. ross001 (213 comments) says:

    So, when many on the Right complained about Helen Clark signing a painting for charity, they were being very very silly.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. ross001 (213 comments) says:

    I must confess Collins’ expression, with respect, is similar to the expression on my dog’s face when it’s taking a shit. Why Collins would want to post such a photo is anyone’s guess.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 15 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. rangitoto (247 comments) says:

    Why would complaining about fraud be silly?

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. MH (762 comments) says:

    Designated Police and Defence Forces firing ranges do not need to be registered as such -c.f. private gun clubs. She was obviously under supervision of authorised personnel. Frivolous and vexatious.

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. GJM (63 comments) says:

    It is not a silly complaint – it is the law under S44 and S50 of the Arms Act. It is also a law that is enforced vigorously for us peons.
    Furthermore, it is Police policy that no one can shoot pistols even under supervision, without holding an A (rifle and shotgun) license.

    Is the range where the photo was taken a recognized pistol club under S29 of the Arms Act? Was the person supervising the Minister holder of a B endorsed fire arms license?
    If not, then the defense available in the Act as below won’t apply:
    5)It is a good defense to a prosecution for an offence against subsection (1)(a) if the defendant proves—
    (a)that the pistol was in his possession for use both—
    (i)on the range of an incorporated pistol club for the time being recognised by the Commissioner for the purposes of section 29; and
    (ii)under the immediate supervision of the holder of a firearms licence bearing an endorsement permitting that person to have possession of that pistol or a pistol of that kind; and
    (b)that at all times while the defendant was in possession of the pistol he was both on such a range and under the immediate supervision of such a person.

    As everyone knows, ignorance of the law is no defense, and indeed the Arms Act clearly states that the onus of proof is on the defendant.
    Mr Lincoln took the police to court and won regarding the way they arbitrarily interpret the Arms Act and make up their own rules regarding MSSAs. The police got their heads handed to them on a plate, but he was out of pocket for a significant sum of money for costs.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. RRM (9,933 comments) says:

    rangitoto (162 comments) says:
    May 23rd, 2014 at 11:55 am

    “Come now, DPF, Helen Clark’s speeding motorcade was under police supervision too and that didn’t stop you whining bitterly about it! ;-)”

    There’s a big difference between discharging a firearm under supervision at a designated test facility versus speeding on a public road putting citizens in danger. One is a technicality, the other reckless criminal behaviour.

    :neutral: Really??

    There aren’t too many blind corners or deceptive bends between Ashvegas and Christchurch. In a reasonably good car like a ministerial V8 LTD Fairlane or a Cop SS Commo driven by someone competent, 200km/h + along there would be no more risky than the potential for one of Judith Collins’ bullets to ricochet off something and lodge between someone’s eyes! :-P

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 11 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. questions (208 comments) says:

    rangitoto says:
    Why would complaining about fraud be silly?

    Because anyone with an IQ over 50 could see that the case wasn’t fraud.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. ross001 (213 comments) says:

    Because anyone with an IQ over 50 could see that the case wasn’t fraud.

    Yeah but we’re talking about those on the Right. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. Elaycee (4,393 comments) says:

    @ross69 / ross001 / whatever you call yourself this week: You’re not the sharpest knife in the drawer, are you?

    But thanks for the reminder… When Clark signed someone else’s painting and it was offered for sale via a charitable auction, prospective buyers were led to believe the work was actually done by ‘Dear Leader’. The Police actually described it as a forgery. Others called it fraud. Regardless, it was a shambles and not one of your hero’s best moments. Perhaps that’s why a Labour Party flunkie purchased the painting and it was destroyed.

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=2050628

    Now, buck your ideas up – you’re starting to give morons a bad rap.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. Nookin (3,354 comments) says:

    “It is also a law that is enforced vigorously for us peons.”

    So how many times have you been prosecuted for testing a pistol on the ERS testing range while under police supervision?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. Nookin (3,354 comments) says:

    “Because anyone with an IQ over 50 could see that the case wasn’t fraud”

    What was it then?

    She did not paint the painting.
    She said she did paint it (by signing the painting) .
    She did so knowing that her name would be used to promote the painting at a sale and thereby achieve a price higher than the price that would have been achieved had the truth been known.
    The painting sold for more than its worth as a result.

    Why is that not fraud?

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. wikiriwhis business (4,019 comments) says:

    Amazing timing. Just this morning someone told me Collins has the nature of a socio path.

    Guess this is confirmation.

    The US is not going to be happy seeing our pollies promoting gun use when they trying to disarm theior own nation so they can take over using 1930’s german tactics to disarm the nation.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. Adolf Fiinkensein (2,903 comments) says:

    To all the lazy illiterates here, you ‘fire’ a gun and you ‘shoot’ a person.

    Leave Americanisms to the Yanks, if you don’t mind.

    And BTW I hope the idiots in the war room keep up their juvenile harrassment of Judith Collins. They’ve been at it now for three and a half months and which way have their poll ratings gone?

    Dooooooooooooooooooooooooooown.

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. rangitoto (247 comments) says:

    RRM. There have been plenty of cases of police car crashes at high speed. A straight road isn’t mitigating in any way. It only required a child or dog to run out onto the road.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. Andronicus (219 comments) says:

    It may have been a silly complaint, but it was a silly thing for Collins to do.

    She is under enough public scrutiny as it is.

    Holding a gun? Putting it on Facebook?

    What the fuck was she thinking?

    Or, maybe, she can’t think at all?

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. OneTrack (3,114 comments) says:

    ross001 – “So, when many on the Right complained about Helen Clark signing a painting for charity, they were being very very silly.

    Yes they were But the left tends to drag them into that sort of silliness with their continual “gotcha” antics. Which is, strangely, exactly what this looks like.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. goldnkiwi (1,312 comments) says:

    Saved an OIA request ;) Farcical the lot of it. Clearly in government politicians should just sit in the House twiddling their thumbs and not interact with anyone or anything outside of the bubble.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. OneTrack (3,114 comments) says:

    wiki – “Amazing timing. Just this morning someone told me Collins has the nature of a socio path.”

    But you can’t really believe everything you hear at a Labour party meeting.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. davidp (3,581 comments) says:

    This is calling out for a caption competition. My entry is:

    “Gone by Monday, Peters?… You’re terminated, loser!”

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. david (2,557 comments) says:

    Judith @ 11:19am
    Please advise the answer.
    Is a Tazer that is incapable of operating in any way, still a Tazer? or is it a collection of plastic and wire components with no apparent use?

    I do not like it in a case
    I do not like it in my space

    I do not like it by and large
    I do not like it without charge

    Not in a case
    not in my space
    not by and large
    not without charge

    I do not like a useless Tazer
    I do not like nit picking comments
    I’d rather like a voltage shock
    To petty posters on this blog

    (apologies to Dr Zeuss)

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. MH (762 comments) says:

    From the NZ Police Range Manual:

    This manual is written primarily as a guide for the design and construction of civilian ranges.
    Nothing in the Arms Act 1983 renders unlawful the carriage and possession of firearms and
    restricted weapons in the course of their duties by members of certain organisations, including
    Police and the New Zealand Defence Force. As a matter of best practice these organisations should
    follow the requirements of the Arms Act 1983 and Arms Regulations 1992 as closely as possible,
    except where there are good operational reasons why this should not be the case.

    The land on which a POLICE station or incorporated range,weapon facility is Crown Land. They can do what they like,in so far as Acts that bound the Crown permit, Health and Safety etc..

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. GPT1 (2,122 comments) says:

    Gun rights are an important matter and this prat is undermining that position with his stupid need for publicity.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ david (2,501 comments) says:
    May 23rd, 2014 at 1:05 pm

    Going by ‘Dr David Zeuss’s argument, answer this, is a gun without a firing pin, still a gun?

    I refer you to parts i – iii below.

    firearm—
    (a)means anything from which any shot, bullet, missile, or other projectile can be discharged by force of explosive; and
    (b)includes—
    (i)anything that has been adapted so that it can be used to discharge a shot, bullet, missile, or other projectile by force of explosive; and
    (ii)anything which is not for the time being capable of discharging any shot, bullet, missile, or other projectile but which, by its completion or the replacement of any component part or parts or the correction or repair of any defect or defects, would be a firearm within the meaning of paragraph (a) or subparagraph (i); and
    (iii)anything (being a firearm within the meaning of paragraph (a) or subparagraph (i)) which is for the time being dismantled or partially dismantled;

    I realise this does not include the tazer, however, if a gun is still a gun, even when not operational, then one can expect that a tazer, no matter what the condition of it, is still a tazer.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Further to above, apparently a stun gun or taser is a restricted weapon declared under section four of the Arms act, and therefore the above points i-iii apply to it. :-)

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. david (2,557 comments) says:

    Judith
    By that definition a piece of galvanised pipe or a diver’s shark stick is a firearm as it can be “repaired” to fire projectiles quite easily. Likewise one of the miniature cannons featured on this blog a couple of years back is a firearm. Somewhere there has to be a line drawn to avoid the ridiculous.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. Yogibear (366 comments) says:

    Kinda think we are making a huge assumption that this is a “left” (which I take as a Labour/Watermelon supporter) motivated complaint

    Pauleastbay outs this Richard Lincoln person via the stuff article where he’s quoted as praising Richard Prosser (one of the few people in NZ ever to do so)

    Kinda smells like this could be laid at Winston’s door as another part of his campaign against Collins

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ david (2,502 comments) says:
    May 23rd, 2014 at 1:56 pm

    You are talking about a conglomeration of materials that are regularly found and are mostly for innocent use.

    The question is, when is a taser not a taser, and what other use do the parts that make up a taser have?

    You can argue it all you like sweetie, but J Collins taser is illegal for her to own, unless she has a licence. I suggest she acknowledge that, plead ignorance, and hand the item back. However I suspect she will now be pursued by the media to answer questions regarding how she came by it, and who, presumably from the police, provided her with the weapon, knowing she did not have a licence for it?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. ross001 (213 comments) says:

    Police actually described it as a forgery. Others called it fraud.

    In other words, you called it fraud. :) But SAFE were delighted with the outcome…

    I bet you were devastated when she wasn’t prosecuted. Which was just as well as there was no realistic chance of a conviction, just as there isn’t for Collins.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. Fentex (986 comments) says:

    I too agree with mjw @ 11:11 am

    The rule of law is important, dismissing someone’s insistence on it as silly is inappropriate.

    It may be this instance of breach of lawful regulation is of little consequence, and as mjw argued a prosecution not in the public interest, but the principle that laws exist so human judgement is minimised in use of power and privilege and we do not live by the sole grace of authorities choices is important.

    And ought not be condescended to as ‘silly’.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. ross001 (213 comments) says:

    J Collins taser is illegal for her to own

    That might be true but I’d rather that she have a taser than David Bain have one. Have you heard if his rifle has been handed back to him?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. wikiriwhis business (4,019 comments) says:

    “Gone by lunch time….”

    Collins/Williamson back by lunch time directly after election and National couldn’t be charged with electoral fraud.

    Pedictable politics with the smile included.

    Chesire Cat or Queen of hearts. All very Alice like.

    Well…. Mad hatter. Let’s be fair to Alice who represents the electorate. She tried to win arguments by common sense.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. wikiriwhis business (4,019 comments) says:

    “Have you heard if his rifle has been handed back to him?”

    Not if it was his father’s rifle.

    I doubt the public get’s firearms returned anyway.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. wikiriwhis business (4,019 comments) says:

    “But you can’t really believe everything you hear at a Labour party meeting.”

    absolutely.

    But when sterilising of beneficiaries has been publicly announced you have to believe an element of the sociopath lies dormant ready to spring in any man’s language.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. wikiriwhis business (4,019 comments) says:

    “Making a joke of this utterly silly complaint is the best way through for the Minister.”

    Making jokes and trivialising real problems is how politics works. Lowest common denominator and incredously common.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. Nostradamus (3,344 comments) says:

    wikiriwhis business:

    But when sterilising of beneficiaries has been publicly announced

    And of course you have evidence of this … public announcement… right?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. Jack5 (5,137 comments) says:

    Wikiwiri, could you elaborate please on your statement:

    …when sterilising of beneficiaries has been publicly announced

    Who said, when?

    Is this about forced sterilisation or about subsidised contraception or such?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. igm (1,413 comments) says:

    Lincoln is definitely a leftie goose! Is he a mate of “Tojo’s”, maybe they fought together in Iraq!

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. ross001 (213 comments) says:

    Not if it was his father’s rifle.

    I doubt the public get’s firearms returned anyway.

    Well, it seems David does indeed want “his” rifle back.

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10594969

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. G152 (349 comments) says:

    Members of the armed forces use weapons without any firearms license.
    Is the nutter going to take the military to court at the same time ?

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. Tookinator (221 comments) says:

    I don’t know why there is so much concern over her non-op tazer? It could just be a plastic shell.
    If there are concerns that someone will break into her office, break the glass case, steal the tazer manage to figure out how to rewire it an get it operational again.
    Why bother when they can go on You Tube and watch a 5 minute video on how to build a stun gun?
    Every time I go to Christmas in the Park I wish I had built one to use on all those people who stand up soon as it starts, even though they are near the front blocking the view from everyone else. In fact they should issue tazers at the gate for use to put these people instantly back on their arses!

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. Harriet (4,975 comments) says:

    “……Please support the rule of law. We need equality before the law, rather then relying on grace and favour from the police….”

    There is nothing wrong with professionals being allowed to make arbitary decisions with regards to the laws – from medicine to education to military matters ect. Infact it’s nessecery at times for things to continue to function as they are intended to.

    Nothing is perfect – and for lawyer types and others to think that the law is perfect at all times is fucken delusional.

    The police are only one type of professional to make arbitary decisions. A ticket or a warning is the best example of arbitary lawmaking.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. jp_1983 (213 comments) says:

    couldnt get her for a glass of milk, now you are trying to get her for a piece of lead

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. jcuk (693 comments) says:

    Dime 11.37
    I am aware of somebody posting a photograph of somebody, twice in fact, holding a revolver on ‘social media’ and being ridiculed for expressing concern at the inappropriateness and later being made fun of over another similar photo.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. lilman (960 comments) says:

    Rss,you continue to rant and rave,would you be so loud if people knew who you were,your full name ,job and such?

    If not worried ok tell us,if you want privacy then a bit of restraint might be in order.

    Finding out who people are on these blogg sites really isnt that difficult if you want to find out who, what, when.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. Lance (2,662 comments) says:

    This matter is really really really really really important for the left.

    Because they have nothing else.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. igm (1,413 comments) says:

    Check Lincoln’s associations with Greens and Labour, interesting!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. Left Right and Centre (2,986 comments) says:

    Looks like she’s pulled the trigger on a few good meals.

    Good ballast for coping with re-coil shock.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. Mr_Blobby (178 comments) says:

    “I don’t have a license but I’ve shot a gun under the supervision of someone who does.”

    Very good. But if it was a pistol, not on a Police and Pistol NZ approved range and you did not have a A cat firearms license and under the direct supervision of a B cat firearms licence holder, shooting his/her gun then it is illegal.

    Mind you a precedent has now been set.

    Now I was out of the Country. Whilst on holiday abroad, some one (one of 5 authorized people) used my vehicle and received a speed camera ticket. I am legally guilty unless I can name the offender. I am guilty until I prove my innocence beyond reasonably doubt.

    Sorry but one law for all please.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. Richard.Lincoln (1 comment) says:

    Richard Lincoln (that would be me) does not have any links, loyalties or affiliations with any particular political party.

    The issue which has been bought to the forefront by my complaint about the illegal use of a handgun is not a political issue, rather it is a legal issue (i.e law and order.)

    The discussion above regarding Collins, misses the point. The point is that police have refused to investigate and prosecute the complaint. Lets see how that sits with all the keyboard warriors above when they get shot at by someone illegally using a gun.

    Many years ago there was a case in NZ; for those who remember the incoming Muldoon government. The case (Fitzgerald v Muldoon) reiterated the legal principle from the ancient case of Entick v Carrington. The principle is that State agents are bound by the law the same as any other individual. That same principle is at issue with Collins’ apparent illegal use of a hand-gun.

    Those who are happy to undermine our constitution will be those who complain when state agents break the law and offend against them.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote