Court Decision

THe High Court has struck down the Police policy decision on MSSA pistol grips. .. ie: We Won. For further info visit the NSA website.

Cheers
R

Police campaign to restrict non-conventional stock designs

Due to the amount of emails I am receiving seeking advice on what to do about the threats that Police are making against A Cat semi automatic gun owners an advisory has been posted on the National Shooters Association Website. See the following link:

http://www.nsanz.org.nz/

Update on judicial review

Today a case management hearing was held in the High Court at Wellington. A number of issues were discussed involving procedure.

The timetabling has been pencilled in as follows:

11 September	The Commissioner of Police has until 11 September to file evidential affidavits.
02 October	The Applicant has until 02 October to file evidential affidavits.
09 October	Crown law has until 09 October to file legal submissions.
16 October	The Applicant has until 16 October to file legal submissions.

This timetable is aimed at a substantive hearing date which has been reserved for the 22^nd October with time also available on October 23^rd. While this date is preferred it is flexible and if any issues arise, particularly in the regard to evidential matters, the date can be postponed.

At my request arrangements have been made that an H&K SL8 firearm will be exhibited in Court.

Further issues have arisen when a member of NSA asked Tony McLeod for advice on how to comply an SL8, Tony said he couldn't comment or give any advice… a rather odd response given that the Police advertising campaign is continuing unabated. See the letter at National Shooters Association Website .

A statement of defence was filed by Crown law but this is considered to be defective because it doesn't disclose any grounds for defence but merely admits the Commissioner and I disagree over what is a military pattern free standing pistol grip: i.e. I say that a military pattern free standing pistol grip is a military pattern free standing pistol grip and he says it's something else.

As most of you would have seen, Joe Green went on TV and publicly stated that the firearms that police are targeting do in fact comply with the definition of a sporting configuration. Joe hasn't been heard from since then and I suspect he may have been transferred to outer Siberia on traffic duties.

The Herald has written another misleading and inaccurate story. NSA has responded to the Herald. See the reports on the National Shooters Association Website .

To grip or not to grip… that is the question

There has been a lot of discussion since Mackenzie J handed down his judgment on interim orders. There seems to be one dominant question: "is my [fill in your favourite rifle here] still legal for my 'A' licence endorsement.

There is no simple – yes / no answer to that until the High Court has disposed of the judicial review proceeding. It is "not known." Any advice police give you is merely an opinion and of no legal standing. The final decision is yours and yours alone. Here is something that may influence your decision.

You are not liable to conviction by a Court for an offence when you have made a mistake of fact. This is distinct from a mistake of law. For example: A man was charged with a traffic offence committed in a rural paddock. The paddock was used for the relevant day as a car park for a field day event. The man knew the paddock was a car-park for the event; he mistakenly believed that the paddock was not subject to the traffic laws that generally applied to roads. In fact the law applies to any area like that, temporary or not, where the public has access. He made a mistake in law. However if the man had not know that the area was annexed as a car park for the day of the event, that would have been a mistake of fact and he would not have been convicted. When you accidentally break the law based on a reasonable mistake of fact then you cannot be convicted.

If you know that your [fill in your favourite rifle here] has a military pattern free standing pistol grip but you believe that the relevant law does not apply from Friday at 6pm until Sunday at 6pm that would be a mistake of law and your busted. However if you genuinely believe that your thumbhole stock is not a military pattern free standing pistol grip then that is a mistake of fact and even if Police tried to prosecute you, a court would acquit. Oh I hear you say, "but the Police would say that they warned me." That maybe so but Mackenzie J says that the police opinion has no legal standing, and the Police have told you for sixteen years that your rifle is 'A' category. If you can look at your [fill in your favourite rifle here], hand on heart, and say, as a reasonable man, it doesn't have a military pattern free standing pistol grip, then you're safe.

NATIONAL SHOOTERS ASSOCIATION MEMBERSHIP ENROLMENT NOW OPEN - CLICK HERE

Membership to the NSA is open now

We have started issuing membership numbers for the NSA. Welcome to those who have already joined. If you wish to join us, please email me the following details"

Name
Address
Contact Phone Number
Occupation / Profession

Please indicate if you are willing / able to be a representative for your region, which also places you on the National Board.

All Information is treated in confidence and maintained on secure IT systems. No personal information is passed on without written consent.

Please put "NSA Member sign up" in the subject line.

Cheers
R

Judgment of High Court on interim orders

Today a fax has arrived from the High Court with Justice Mackenzie's decision on interim orders. The print quality is poor so I will post the full version when I get a hardcopy in the mail.

There are 8 pages which go into some detail of the discussion but the most relevant in my view is this:

"Ultimately the question whether the previous interpretation, or the new interpretation, is to be preferred will be matter for the Court. Neither the previous interpretation nor the new interpretation has any particular legal status. In those circumstances, it would not be appropriate for the Court to make an interim order which would have the effect of preferring, on an interim basis and without hearing full argument, the previous interpretation over the new interpretation."

Other relevant snippets of interest:

"In considering what is necessary to preserve the position of the applicant, it is important to note that Police do not have, under the Act, the ability to make a binding classification of the weapons in question"

"That question must be determined, where necessary, by any Court which is determining some relevant issue. The Court will not be bound by the Police interpretation, but must itself apply the relevant definition to the firearm in question."

Justice Mackenzie has essentially found that because the Police "new interpretation" is merely an opinion of Police it is in effect inconsequential. He alluded to this point again in his discussion concerning the Courts ability to make any decision at all given that the Police could not exercise a statutory power to classify firearms. He said (there are some limited) "circumstances in which the Court may correct errors of law in non-binding advice from a public authority". Justice Mackenzie declined to make interim orders.

As I'm flat out with this Court stuff, I invite everyone to write to the Commissioner of Police and ask this:

1. Is the commissioner willing to extend to you, the immunity from prosecution that has been extended to me... until the High Court has dealt with this judicial review?
   
2. How are Police going to reimburse the public if they spend $60,000 on advertising an opinion which is ultimately found wanting?
   
3. What contingency plan have Police developed to ensure:
   
   1. that there is a better uptake on registrations than the less than 50% achieved in 1992,
      
   2. that any remaining unregistered 'new' MSSAs do not end up in the hands of criminals, social misfits and psychopaths.
      

… We didn't get an interim order but look on the bright side… if the Police start advertising this 'opinion' nationally their only going to be irritating more and more shooters which will ultimately be good for our cause. And we have a statement in no uncertain terms that Police have no authority to reclassify firearms J

And to the lovely Erin who commented on my profile photo…. "I'm flattered; but no thanks."

Cheers

R

 

Regional working parties

Mark K has usefully suggested that regional working parties would be a good start to putting our structures in place. This seems like an excellent idea.

My suggestion is this: Each region should have a representative whose role would be to coordinate between members in their region and the national body. Each regional Rep would be a board member and will be part of the national leadership team. Lets start getting some names and locations :ie City, town, district. Once we have sufficient national coverage I will attempt to sort out regional boundaries and each region can have a nomination and election process for a representative. Email me your name & addy & occupation, contact details - (which of course will be confidential) and indicate if you are up for being a rep. If everyone is happy I will manage this as the "Caretaker President" until we get a full democratic structure in place.

LETS BE CLEAR: As I promised from the outset - All donations made to the judicial review legal fund are retained for that purpose alone and any surviving funds will be returned to the donors. The new organisation is a separate identity and will be funded separately.

So lets start drawing up our membership list, join before the end of August and get immortal infamey with your name scribed on the constitution which will be revered and honoured by our children, grandchildren and all the future generations that will remain in awe of our dedication and efforts to preserve their heritage of shooting sports ;)... we hope so anyway :-)

Email with: "NSA Member signup" in the subject line.

Cheers
R

Draft Constitution

Discussion draft constitution for "National Shooters Association"

CONSTITUTION DRAFT

A couple of typos to fix but you get the idea.

And the Truth newspaper article

TRUTH

Cheers
R

This is the way it should

Example of a good organisation protecting the rights of its members.... Go the NRA ! what say you all ?

NRA Civil Rights Defence fund

Email

There are many emails being received, which I greatly appreciate, and I try to reply to each one. However someone has managed to interfere with my email server. I have sorted this but it could take a day to get my outward mail flowing correctly again. If you have not received a reply from me, it is because of that.

regards
R

More from me….

I had an email this morning from a shooter who had run into considerable problems with the Police MSSA policy. I replied and copy that reply here, for the information of our participants / supporters.

 

This all sounds likes like pretty frustrating bollocks. At this stage I would make the following observations / suggestions…

The Police have their own 'bent' on how arms control should be 'administered' in New Zealand. This, in my view, is often in conflict with the purposes of the Act. This MSSA policy which you have shed further light on is a classic example. Parliament specifically recognised in 1989- 1992 that were legitimate reasons for some uses of MSSAs. The intention was 'tight control' not 'eventual eradication; which is the Police intention. Likewise the purpose of the Act is being subjected to gross misfeasance by Police with their 'interpretation' of what is a 'military pattern free-standing pistol grip.'

The Police have arrived at a point in their 'sinking lid' regime of (supposed to be) firearms 'control' that someone… that would be me… has had enough and is going to tackle them head on in Court.  This particular issue is of course different to yours. However we have also seen future policy plans that include limiting all magazines for all firearms to 10 rounds, we have already seen classifying of bolt-action rifles as semi-automatics, and so on and so on.  Neither your issue nor the pistol shooters issues (the 10 round limit on mags) is technically of any interest what-so-ever to me. I couldn't care less if you can't have an MSSA. As long as I can knock over venison for my freezer and use my SL8 to exchange pest control of goats for hunting access I'm happy … does that sound familiar? However…. read on.

I have been droning on and on, here and there, that we (shooters / firearms license holders) in all genres of our sport need to stick together. To this regard my legal action will be the genesis of a new organisation. It will be named the 'National Shooters Association' (assuming that name is available) and it will be open to all license holders, clubs, dealers and importers.  Through subscription fees, dealer sponsorship and other fund raising means, the associations primary function will be to challenge in Court unfounded and unlawful decisions of Police and the Executive in regard to the administration of arms control legislation (The Arms Act and the Arms Regulations.)

So regardless that I personally don't give a toss if you have permission to get an MSSA or not I will be off to the High Court on your behalf, pleadings in hand, for judicial review of any non-purposive administrative decision (such as that made in your case.) We will be doing the political lobby thing to ensure that pistol shooters are not restricted to 10 round magazines, and taking Court action on behalf of any other members to challenge any of these unlawful and non-purposive decisions by our public servants. In summary I can tell you that I will stand beside you as a fellow law-abiding responsible firearms licence holder.

So for now… I highly recommend that you petition all firearms license holders you know to sign on for this fight and carry their subscription over to membership of the National Shooters Association when that is formed. Download the handout from the website and stand-outside your local branch of the 'silent national chain arms dealer 'for ½ an hour.

What does the future hold…

I have recently received an email with the following comment…..

Reading the forums hunters/shooters seem to think once they have obtained their e class endorsement the police are readily going to allow them to pursue the same activities they have previously participated in with their new folding stock, pistol grip, flash hidden, 100 round drum magazine fed upgraded saiga etc.  

Anyone who believes the Police will allow them to obtain hi-cap magazines and other bling for their e-cat… I can convey this information on good authority, and I copy here exactly what was sent to me in another email - verbatim:

3.) The police have requested government to pull back the current arms act amendment bill (3) to make their suggested revisions, …

4.) These revisions will also see the reclassification of all air powered weapons of any sort, including paintball, to require a firearms license for lawful possession.

5.) Also on the agenda is the increase of A-Cat weapons to a maximum of 10 rounds magazine capacity and a decrease of E-Cat to 10 Rounds capacity. E-Cat will therefore only be based on appearance rather than firepower. This will also be applied to B-Cat, as pistols will be allowed a maximum of 10 Round magazine capacity also. The recommendation of police is that there will be no compensation for this, as magazines can be "Cut down". There will likely be a process they will have to follow for this, such as going to select committee and public submission.

As I recently said to some hopeful optimist in one of the forums… "wise up" We (firearms license holders in all genres of the sport of hunting and shooting) need to show a united and consistent front. The only thing that will stop the anti-gun brigade is if a politician is fearful of losing his seat or hopeful of gaining / regaining a seat (in Parliament) If gun-owners show now, in this case, in this battle, on this ground, that they are cohesive, organised and well resourced we will clearly demonstrate that we cannot be ignored and disregarded. If we sit on our collective butts and do nothing our butts will go and the next thing will be [fill in you favourite gun here]. So again "wise-up"

Interim Orders

Justice Mackenzie held a one hour hearing in the High Court this afternoon.

The crown acknowledged there was a serious question of law to be answered. They argued that my only standing was that I owned one of the firearms impacted by the decision. Their argument was that they had given an assurance that they would not prosecute me pending the disposition of the review and accordingly that the reasonable necessity for interim relief was not proved.

I argued that my standing was (1) being a licence holder (2) that I owned one of the firearms impacted (3) I was a member of the public. I then argued that I was unable to exercise the normal rights given by my licence as the police had reclassified many of the firearms I was entitled to prior to the reclassification in accordance with previously issued police approvals. I argued that in terms of my own rifle I was unable to exercise normal rights; for example lending it to another "a-cat" licence holder. I then argued that as a member of the public I was entitled to relief from a police policy decision which would repeat the 1992 fiasco and put 10,000 odd more MSSAs into the hands of criminals and psychopaths. I pointed to the $60,000 dollars in advertising at the tax-payers expense that the police were proposing. I said that the current 'policy' had run for 16 years and the purpose of the 1992 amendments was to prevent any further 'Aramoanas' and that it had. I submitted that there was no disadvantage to the police or general public in stopping the policy and that there was significant consequence for other public and commercial interests if it were to go ahead. I presented a police photo of the weapons from the Napier siege to Justice Mackenzie and told the judge that what the crown was asking, on behalf of the commissioner was for him to be instrumental in potentially arming the criminal underbelly with yet another 10,000 MSSA's similar to what happened in 1992. I told him that this matter begs for interim orders.

Justice Mackenzie said that in his view the Police reinterpretation of the Arms Act is irrelevant and meaningless, that the Police had no statutory power to make a binding interpretation and that any such interpretation was inconsequential.

 

Justice Mackenzie reserved his decision on interim orders. I did my best …. Keep you posted when I get the decision

 

Have a look in "The Truth" newspaper out today!

 

Hearing today

The High Court hearing for interim orders is at noon today … how ironic … "high noon!" Everything is as prepared and ready as can be. Unfortunately we have no barrister but I will do my absolute best for us all. Although we have had a lot of behind the scenes assistance from a certain Barrister in the mainland (you know who you are.)The judge today is Justice Mackenzie. We have a backup plan in case the interim order is not granted. Gun City and New Zealand Ammunition have given me written permission to join them to the proceeding as additional plaintiffs. They are able to show substantial loss / potential loss from the unlawful misinterpretation policy of Police. We can revisit the question of interim orders with them onboard - if we have to.

Now if you will excuse me I have to go throw the polar fleece in the wash and dust off the suit and tie! Will update this evening.

Cheers

R

Look its a single shot, military style, lever action, semi-automatic, double barrel, subatomic, nuclear, musket machine gun PERIOD !

I have confirmed the details of the bolt-action rifle classified by Police as being a semi-automatic. The Steyr AUG has recently been produced in a straight pull bolt action model; similar to the H&K R8. The New Zealand Police recently inspected one of these bolt action rifles pending import into New Zealand. They classified it as semi-automatic.

Legal definition of a semi-automatic (Arms Act section 2)

"a firearm which, after being loaded, fires, ejects, and chambers a cartridge with each pull of the trigger"

Lawyers for the importers wrote to Police:

"We are puzzled about that view, given that the firearm in question has, by the manufacturer, been made a straight pull bolt action rifle. It does not, therefore, after being loaded, fire, eject and chamber a cartridge with each pull of the trigger."

Inspector Joe Green replied:

"The Police Armourer has demonstrated that all of the working of the semi automatic are retained with the exception of the gas assembly attached to the barrel. By simply replacing the barrel with one with this attached, and which is the original design of the firearm (a very simple process) the firearm is returned to semi automatic. That is, to its original form. This is a non technical explanation Police are happy to expand on."

If you have a firearm that can be converted from a bolt action to a semi-automatic then that firearm is a semi-automatic regardless of whether it's been converted or not?

Maybe we should have a game of "think up a misinterpretation"... hmmm let me see.. well it doesnt fire a cartridge (it fires a projectile)... nor does it load a cartridge after the last round is fired.. well that settles it... theres no such thing in NZ law as a semi-automatic !

Further advice

This court action has a very high probability of success however there can be no absolute guarantee of a win. In the event that the Police succeed in this case, they will have effectively gained a ruling that each firearm that they approved for the last sixteen years as 'a' category which is now re-classified was incorrectly approved in the first place. This of course establishes substantial negligence on the part of Police and they will be liable for any costs incurred on firearms owners and dealers for conversions, security upgrades, consequential losses and so on. If you do take any steps to comply with the threats and demands from Police at this time, please keep your receipts. In the event that they do manage to establish their negligence by winning these proceedings, I will be arranging a class action to sue for the extra costs of compliance and loss incurred.

Notice of date of interlocutory hearing

We have a date…

Yesterday there were some discussions with the Registrar of the High Court at Palmerston North. I was concerned that this matter was not being taken seriously. Needless to say there were a couple of succinct emails that went to the courthouse.

The Registrar has now been in contact again and has now set the matter down for 29^th July 2009 at 12 noon in the High Court here at Palmerston North. That's next Wednesday. I will post the actual fixture notice when it arrives.

I call on you now to help me by emailing me and setting out your own circumstances. This however is not the forum to debate the substantive issue (that chance will come later.) We need to focus on interim orders; the purpose of these is to preserve the position of the applicant.

For now I need to show the Court the following points:

• You are a real person… i.e. identity – name and city of domicile
  
• You have standing – ie: you are affected because you own one of the firearms affected by the policy change, or are selling, buying, fixing, borrowing one, planning to marry one, or whatever.
  
• Interim orders will not be contrary to the public interest: - eg: You have held a firearms license for a period of time, you have never caused any trouble with your firearms, and it is not contrary to the public interest to hold the status quos. You will obey the law as it applies at this time until the court has considered this matter. You are a law-abiding responsible FAL holder who takes the responsibility of having firearms seriously and respectfully.
  
• You are disadvantaged by the new policy because – eg: you are fixing a gun that you cannot return to its owner, you are stuck with shop stock you cannot sell, you cannot assist your neighbour culling furry things, you will be unable to hunt to feed your family, etc, etc. You will be criminalised if the policy is implemented and in peril of prosecution. You don't want to buy a new safe, get and 'e' endorsement – or – modify your gun – or hand it over to Police – or sell it… while this matter has not yet been determined by the Court.
  

All this in your own words please J

Date for interim orders

The High Court at Palmerston North provided a date today for the hearing of the interlocutory application for interim orders. The notice states 14 August 2009 in Court room 1 at 10am.

I have responded to the Registrar pointing out that that date is unacceptable as it is after the 10^th of August and this matter should be heard prior to that date and with sufficient time to appeal to the Court of appeal if an interim order is declined. I have also pointed out that this matter has far reaching effects for thousands of other private and commercial interests. I have asked for an earlier fixture. The Registrar has not replied yet.

I now ask that all effect users email me so that I can present those emails to the Judge: Who you are, your license has been held for how many years, your concerns about this matter, your desire not to be criminalised by Police, etc, etc. I will present those emails to the Judge…. (So mind your P's & Q's.)

Also everyone who can and will attend the Court fixture please email me separately and let me know. It is important that we have a good show of hands to ensure that we are taken seriously. Members of the Press are likely to be present.

Cheers

R

Intentions clearer…. here we go ….

Today I have been told on good authority that the Police department have just classified a bolt action rifle as a semi-automatic. I have not seen the papers yet but when I do I will confirm; and ask if I can post copies up here. I hope that makes the apathetic "this doesn't really affect us" bunch sit up and take notice. Start preparing your Ruger M77 semi-automatic bolt-action military style hunting rifle for an E endorsement… here it comes!