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!

Donations

All donations to the legal fighting fund will be used to pay for a barrister and court costs such as filing fees and disbursements.

When you subscribe you will receive a regular email update that will include bank statements and financial reporting.

No court case is a guaranteed win but we have a very high probability of being successful in this case. At the end of the case, when we win, we will be entitled to an award of costs. Generally we can expect to receive between 60% to 80% of the actual costs.

Any surviving donation will be paid back to the donors, on a percentage basis…. For example: if you donate $100.00 and we have 90% surviving funds overall, you will be refunded $90.00.

Please ensure that your donation has some kind of number or your name. For example pick your own 4 digit pin. We will cross-reference this against your donation amount to confirm your identity to pay back your donations.

Milestone!

Today we have reached somewhat of a milestone... we just passed 50 and we now have 51 members of our group supporting the cause. This is an important milestone I think, in terms of raising $50,000 to pay for our barrister.

Why do I think that…?

When I started this campaign against the big blue fist of dictatorship, I was faced with having to find $50,000 from myself — (a reasonably onerous task for 'self' I can tip you.) The first person who joined the cause spilt that into $25,000 each. At 50 members we got to $1000.00 each, which is not going to bankrupt anyone but it is still a considerable amount of money for most people in these hard economic times. But the good news is that it all gets easier from here – our group now represents $980.00 each and counting down from here. I have celebrated today's milestone by making a donation of $1000.00 to our fighting fund from my salary; the dog and I are on rice and possum for the rest of the month but we will survive !

Thankyou to all who stay the cause and believe as I do that — in this free country of New Zealand it is the exclusive right of our democratically elected government to govern us and legislate in our name.

Application for interim orders (injunction)

Following today's judicial conference with His Honour Justice MacKenzie, I have authored, filed and served on crown law an interlocutory application for interim orders.

The Registrar of the High Court at Palmerston North will now time-table a hearing and the High Court will determine that application. I have asked that it be heard with urgency given that the 10th of August is the date the defendant is implementing their purported reclassification policy. It is possible, if not likely that the hearing will be held in Wellington (In Chambers - HCR 7.34)

Cheers
R

http://www.drivehq.com/file/df.aspx/publish/Krewzr/PublicFolder/Interim_order_app.pdf

http://www.drivehq.com/file/df.aspx/publish/Krewzr/PublicFolder/rcpt2.pdf

Outcome of Judicial Conference

Justice MacKenzie dealt with various procedural issues this morning.

The shape and form of the proceedings have been accepted and the substantive issue has been adequately set out. There has been no requirement to amend the statement of claim.

The defendant has been given until August 7th to file a notice of defence. Once that is filed there will be a further judicial case management (telephone)conference on August 18th to deal with issues of discovery and evidence.

I raised with the judge that I was not satisfied to wait until August 18th to deal with the issue of interim relief orders. I pointed out that there were 240,000 people effected by the Police policy and that that was due to be imposed on us on the 10th of August. The Judge instructed that an application for interim orders was to be filed and he accepted that that application would be timetabled separately and heard, probably in Wellington, for the sake of expediancy.

I have had discussions with other stake-holders yesterday evening and this morning and we are gaining momentum and increasingly the financial clout to get a .50 CAL full-auto barrister on our team. Keep up the good work pounding the streets for donations.


Cheers
R

Judicial conference memorandum

Judicial conference memorandum submitted to Court today. This addresses procedural issues and seeks an estoppel on Police altering the terms of a firearms license.

Click on the title [Judicial conference memorandum] above to view the PDF copy. Also available on the sidebar under proceedings documents links.

Affidavit supporting application for interim orders available on the sidebar under proceedings documents links

Cheers
R

Crown law office in contact

Crown law have emailed me and provided their contact person who will be championing their defence.

Next week on Tuesday we have the judicial conference. Prior to that conference we have to prepare a memorandum covering various procedural issues; one of which if the issue of interlocutory applications — if any. An interlocutory application is an application for a Court order peripheral to the substantive issue.

I have asked Crown Law to secure and undertaking from Police that they will set-aside their policy until the Court has finally dealt with the matter.

This is my email to crown law:

 

"Thankyou for your email Austin

I am preparing a memorandum for the High Court conference. At this stage I seek from you a formal undertaking from crown law that the Police will not further advertise, implement or enforce their reinterpretation of the Arms Act definition of MSSA, and that the Police policy is forthwith set-aside and is of no effect until this matter is finally determined by the High Court. In this way we will avoid the need to apply for an interim injunction.

I would draw to your attention that Police are currently criminalising thousands of responsible law-abiding citizens and interfering with the commercial interests of hundreds of legitimate arms dealers and manufacturers. The mood of those presently affected is such that I cannot guarantee that collectively we will not sue for exemplary damages if the Police are uncooperative.

Would you be good enough to let me know as soon as possible. If I do not hear from you prior to filing memoranda, I will assume that such an undertaking is not forthcoming and an interim injunction, with its associated costs, will have to be considered.

Richard Lincoln"

What will happen in this judicial review?

The judge conducting the review in the High Court will hear evidence of fact and submissions on law. The High Court can then make an order. The order can be an injunction to stop something, or an order of specific performance to make something happen, or even an order confirming the disputed issue. The Court can make a declaratory judgment (which cannot then be contested by Police – subject to their right of appeal).

In this case I am asking the High Court to make a declaratory judgment that my H&K SL8-4 is a non-military style semi-automatic rifle – it is a semi-automatic rifle that is kept in a sporting configuration for the purposes of section 2 of the Arms Act 1983.

The case is framed in this way to avoid certain traps – for example: It is doubtful that I could ask the court to overturn an "administrative decision" of the Police to reclassify semi-auto firearms. The Police have no statutory authority to reclassify firearms therefore their reinterpretation of the Arms Act is not as such, an administrative decision.

In the course of this case the Court will be obliged to consider the interpretation of section 2 of the arms act – dealing with the definition of an MSSA.

This effects all FAL holders in New Zealand and its outcome will not only define MSSA but it will also either encourage or discourage Police to manipulate the interpretation of the law to suit their own agenda in the future…. Could be with firearms, could be with that inconsequential smack… could be with anything. So really this has a wider consequence for all New Zealanders.

Please support this case in any way you can.

Cheers

R

 

Successful litigation for firearms owners

Click here