Thursday, July 2, 2009

Judicial Conference Timetabled

Today the High Court at Palmerston North provided a service copy of the proceeding and that has been served on Central Districts Police HQ in Palmerston North. A judicial conference has been timetabled for 14 July 2009 at 9.30am (by telephone conference).

The documents detailing the judicial conference can be seen on the side bar. "Judicial Conference Notice" >>>>


I notice there have been 3 people who have voted in favour of the Police "re-classification". Good to see that we are getting both sides of the opinion. I am genuinely interested to hear from people who voted "yes". Feel free to click on the comments section of this blog and back up your vote with the reasons why you voted "yes"

Email has been received from a member of the Press so the buzz is out there and your voices are being heard.

If you havn't voted yet... nows the time

5 comments:

Gary said...

I voted no, even though the rule change would probably work in my favour.

I own an SL8. I also have my E endorsement. I've previously applied for an import permit for a folding stock, pistol grip, hi-cap mags for the SL8. I got knocked back, even though I offered up a surrender-weapon.

I'd really like to be able to use the SL8 with a hi-cap mag in IPSC 3-gun competitions, without wandering into a legal grey-area that would have Joe Green baying for my FAL.

If this goes through, I'll get my SL8 registered as an MSSA and be able to fit any size mag to it. Just what I've always wanted to do, but been told up to now that I couldn't.

But that doesn't change the fact that the proposed change goes quite blatantly beyond what the law allows.

richard said...

Would love to see the previous paperwork if you still have it.... Could be interesting to have a Police letter of refusal to import a pistol grip and refusing to register you SL8 as an MSSA.... Judge would like to see that :)

Cheers
R

Craig said...

I have been following this debate, and I have read your Judicial Review proceedings.

While I commend your efforts, and support the principles, I suggest that your proceedings are flawed, and are highly likely to be counter productive.

I note that you have filed these proceedings yourself. There is an old saying that a man who acts for himself has a fool for a lawyer.

The danger you face is that you will front up in Court, face the might of the Crown Law Office (instructed by the Police) and lose. That will then be a binding High Court decision supporting the Police interpretation, to the detriment of all other interested parties.

If you have not already done so, I suggest you get some good legal advice, so that when you get to Court you are:
- well represented by someone who knows the law.
- well represented by someone who knows how these legal proceedings operate.
- well supported by appropriate expert evidence about what a "military pistol grip" is, and thus what a "military STYLE pistol grip" is etc.

There are plenty of lawyers who are keen shooters, and owners of E cat firearms. I am sure you will find someone who is prepared to help. At the moment I think you are outgunned.

R said...

Hi Craig

I dont know why you think my proceedings are "flawed"...? I assume you mean that their is a legal flaw in my argument?

I have conducted my own High Court appearance in the past (and won.) The crown law office are not 'goliath' and their views are not always right. See PTC v Commissioner of Police.

I am hoping that I will not have to conduct my own case. On the side bar you will see a "participants section" There has already been offers to provide financial support for counsel. There are other members who have made financial contributions.

You are right that the decision will be 'res judicata' so it is in the interests of all FAL holders to get on board with this effort.

Cheers
R

Craig said...

I have attempted to find PTC v Commissioner of Police, which you refer to.

Where, when, and by whom was it decided.

What is the full title - "PTC" doesn't come up on any of the general sites eg Brookers.