• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

New Zealand Shooting

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,539
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
It is interesting what the media consider “relaxed gun laws”:

New Zealand’s gun regulations are considered more relaxed than many other countries, including the United States [emphasis mine].
New Zealand’s gun laws currently operate on a "licensing but no registration" system, meaning that a majority of firearms in the country do not need to be registered, the Australian Financial Review reported. The system does include background and reference checks, along with safety training and a written test, the newspaper reported.

A person must be at least 16 to own a gun, The Sydney Morning Herald reported. Carrying a gun is only allowed for people who have a "lawful, proper, and sufficient purpose," such as hunting, pest control or sports shooting, the newspaper reported. Self-defense is not considered a reason to own a gun [emphais mine], the Morning Herald reported.
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
7,740
Location
here nc
Alas, the country’s PM stated "It is clear that this can now only be described as a terrorist attack," Prime Minister Ardern said in a press conference.

A purely racist attack against a religious population by a disturbed 28 yo Aussie no worse/better than the recent US Synagogue shootings.

The NZ authorities have the perb - alive and well, which US LEs fail to succeed at - always!

Now eye95, do you not see the initial WHIO newspeek’s headline a bit ANTI GUN from the git go while the rest of the world’s newspeek media is reporting the event...WHIO dark master and is a mom against everything eye95 - look away, look away...
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,539
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
I normally don’t reply to your posts. I find them to be almost solely antagonistic.

However, one of the points you raise is so ignorant that it demands reply:

The terrorist himself labeled the attack as a terrorist attack.

Back to not giving a rip what you have to say.

Edited to correct grammar mistake.
 
Last edited:

CJ4wd

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2017
Messages
191
Location
Planet Earth
Hopefully, after that short and pointless interlude, we can get back to the point I was raising:

Really??? NZ’s gun laws are more relaxed than the US’s?
With your earlier post about self-defense NOT being a "reason", you have to wonder about their "reasoning". Self-defense/preservation is one of the most basic factors in all life ! How can preservation of life NOT be a reason??
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,539
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
With your earlier post about self-defense NOT being a "reason", you have to wonder about their "reasoning". Self-defense/preservation is one of the most basic factors in all life ! How can preservation of life NOT be a reason??
Aye. It is THE reason to carry! New Zealand does not have a lot of freedom in its gun laws.
 

Ghost1958

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2015
Messages
697
Location
Kentucky
Aye. It is THE reason to carry! New Zealand does not have a lot of freedom in its gun laws.
Actually according to the founders writings THE reason for the RTKABA was and is so the people can defend themselves against and if necessary remove a corrupt gov. Self defense is simply a natural right as old as man and at times requires no weapon at all.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,539
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
Defense is defense. Whether an external enemy, local thugs, or a corrupt, tyrannical government, the point of the RKBA is self-defense.
 

DW98

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 15, 2013
Messages
274
Location
Australia
The NZ Prime Minister just stated during a press conference "our gun laws will change".

They'll probably adopt a similar system to the BS we have over here. The US is looking more and more inviting...
 

Ghost1958

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2015
Messages
697
Location
Kentucky
Defense is defense. Whether an external enemy, local thugs, or a corrupt, tyrannical government, the point of the RKBA is self-defense.
Of course. As you wish.

I was just considering all the tyrannical governments in history that were attacked by their oppressed people to gain their freedom.

Silly me.
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
4,607
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Defense is defense. Whether an external enemy, local thugs, or a corrupt, tyrannical government, the point of the RKBA is self-defense.
Self-defense. That's an interesting term. eye95 you have lived in Ohio long enough. How does that work? Is it an affirmative defense? Is self-defense an inalienable right, a statutory right, a court sanctioned right or a combination of them? Or do you have to run away from an attacked even if you are in a place you have a right to be?

I'll give you a head start; State v. Melchior, 56 Ohio St. 2d 15, (1978) is the first Ohio Supreme Court case creating three criteria in determining self-defense. The Melchior Court stated at paragraph 21 that:
To establish self-defense, the following elements must be shown: (1) the slayer was not at fault in creating the situation giving rise to the affray, Stewart v. State (1852), 1 Ohio St. 66, 75; State v. Doty (1916), 94 Ohio St. 258; State v. Morgan (1919), 100 Ohio St. 66, 72; (2) the slayer has a bona fide belief that he was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that his only means of escape from such danger was in the use of such force, Marts v. State (1875), 26 Ohio St. 163, paragraph two of the syllabus; State v. Champion (1924), 109 Ohio St. 281, paragraph one of the syllabus; State v. Sheets (1926), 115 Ohio St. 308, 310; and (3) the slayer must not have violated any duty to retreat or avoid the danger, State v. Peacock (1883), 40 Ohio St. 333, 334; Graham v. State (1918), 98 Ohio St. 77, 79.
Don't get confused with element two. Concentrate on element three.
Hint: Element 2 in State v. Melchior, 56 Ohio St. 2d 15, (1978) states “(2) the slayer has a bona fide belief that he was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that his only means of escape from such danger was in the use of such force,” citing Marts v. State (1875), 26 Ohio St. 163. The Marts court said,
“Homicide is justifiable on the ground of self-defense, where the slayer, in the careful and proper use of his faculties, bona fide believes, and has reasonable ground to believe, that he is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm, and that his only means of escape from such danger [of death] will be by taking the life of his assailant, although in fact he is mistaken as to the existence or imminence of the danger.”
In other words, element 2 means the escape from death or great bodily harm. Element 2 has nothing to do with running away or retreating from a dangerous situation. If that were the case then element 3 would be redundant.

Please include case law to support your analysis.
 
Last edited:

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,539
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
The NZ Prime Minister just stated during a press conference "our gun laws will change".

They'll probably adopt a similar system to the BS we have over here. The US is looking more and more inviting...
Thanks for the on-topic reply.

We need people here who appreciate Liberty to fight all the people trying to steal it.
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
4,607
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Thanks for the on-topic reply.

We need people here who appreciate Liberty to fight all the people trying to steal it.
You are the one that raised the issue of self-defense. I ask you to provide us a serious analysis of having a duty to retreat in a self-defense situation. You do need to know your rights, especially in a self-defense situation. I will wait.
 

DW98

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 15, 2013
Messages
274
Location
Australia
Confirmed by the NZ attorney-general that semi-automatic rifles will be banned :rolleyes:
 

hammer6

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 11, 2008
Messages
1,309
Location
Florida
Did anyone watch the live stream? What are your thoughts?

He was able to go from a side street around the corner past two people on the sidewalk while carrying two guns, enter the building, then exit and fire upon people on the sidewalk in each direction, head back to his car to reload, and then back on the sidewalk to fire rounds, run down the sidewalk and fire down an alleyway, then back in the building, then back out to the sidewalk and fire rounds, get in his car and drive off. Then proceed to shoot through his windshield and window, and continue driving to the next location. No resistance to be seen.
 

hammer6

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 11, 2008
Messages
1,309
Location
Florida
Did anyone watch the live stream? What are your thoughts?

He was able to go from a side street around the corner past two people on the sidewalk while carrying two guns, enter the building, then exit and fire upon people on the sidewalk in each direction, head back to his car to reload, and then back on the sidewalk to fire rounds, run down the sidewalk and fire down an alleyway, then back in the building, then back out to the sidewalk and fire rounds, get in his car and drive off. Then proceed to shoot through his windshield and window, and continue driving to the next location. No resistance to be seen.
The false story concerning the high school student in the MAGA hat spread like wild-fire, but a video that would drive any sane person to consider purchasing a weapon for self-defense is taken down EVERYWHERE immediately by a full-scale effort.

They only want us to see and hear what they want us to see. I wonder if mainstream media is talking about the gun mag already on the floor before he enters the building?
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,539
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
Did anyone watch the live stream? What are your thoughts?

He was able to go from a side street around the corner past two people on the sidewalk while carrying two guns, enter the building, then exit and fire upon people on the sidewalk in each direction, head back to his car to reload, and then back on the sidewalk to fire rounds, run down the sidewalk and fire down an alleyway, then back in the building, then back out to the sidewalk and fire rounds, get in his car and drive off. Then proceed to shoot through his windshield and window, and continue driving to the next location. No resistance to be seen.
But New Zealanders seem to think that the problem was that he had guns, not that all the people he was shooting at did not.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,539
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
New Zealand has no constitution. What is often referred to as a constitution is a series of laws passed by the government and long-standing practices. Even in their “Bill of Rights”, enacted by their legislature, there is no Right to Self Defence and no Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

Whatever “rights” they have, were granted by the government, and can be taken away by the government. This state of affairs makes what they call “rights” to be privileges. There is no real recognition in New Zealand that the People are ultimately sovereign over the government.

To be fair, despite our having a Constitution, we are rapidly declining into a state where what the government decides is supreme over what should be inviolable Rights.
 
Top