Manager not comfortable with guns

Manager not comfortable with guns

This is a discussion on Manager not comfortable with guns within the General Firearm Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Even in little old NZ here we encounter issues. My manager called me in for a meeting the other day and said he wasnt comfortable ...

Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: Manager not comfortable with guns

  1. #1
    Member Array heylin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    394

    Manager not comfortable with guns

    Even in little old NZ here we encounter issues.

    My manager called me in for a meeting the other day and said he wasnt comfortable with me getting guns delivered to my work. He reckons others might not feel comfortable with them being here either and that it could reflect badly on him in allowing me.

    Basically ive had one gun delivered since hes been working here, I thought it may be far safer to have it delievered to my work rather than sit outside my home on my porch while im not at home.

    Anyway I told him it was a legal requirement for me to have them delivered to my work, either that or he has to let me stay at home to await delivery.
    --------------------------------------------------------------
    Evil prevails when good men stand by and do nothing
    --------------------------------------------------------------


  2. #2
    VIP Member Array Paco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    McKinney, TX
    Posts
    3,507
    Quote Originally Posted by heylin View Post
    or he has to let me stay at home to await delivery.
    I'd go for that option myself, anytime I can work from home I take it.

    Good luck with your manager, I hope the company rules don't get changes to prevent you from taking deliveries.
    "Don't hit a man if you can possibly avoid it; but if you do hit him, put him to sleep." - Theodore Roosevelt

    -Paco
    http://www.shieldsd.net

  3. #3
    VIP Member Array wmhawth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Western Colorado
    Posts
    4,554
    Quote Originally Posted by heylin View Post
    Even in little old NZ here we encounter issues.
    .
    What are New Zealand laws like with regard to gun ownership and is there any such thing as legal concealed carry in Kiwi Land?

  4. #4
    Member Array heylin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    394
    What are New Zealand laws like with regard to gun ownership and is there any such thing as legal concealed carry in Kiwi Land?
    Not as harsh as UK as some might expect, basically we have different classes of licence and each class has different hoops to jump through.

    A CLASS - Rilfes & Shotguns
    Pay $100, fill out a form, sit a firearms safety test, 1 police interview with some background checks and within 4 weeks you can purchase pretty much any rifle or shotgun you want and take it right home.

    B CLASS - Pistol
    Must sit A Class above, but in addition to this must also complete a 6 month probationary period at local pistol club before being able to apply for a B Class, cost is $200 + club memebership of $160 per year. Pistol licence requires additional police interview with 2 referees.

    Must have approved safe at home for storage, must be member of pistol club and attend at least 12 times per year, can only shoot at approved clubs. Maximum of 12 pistols able to owned.

    C CLASS - Collectors Licence
    Able to own (but not fire) military weapons. Addtional security required (ie special safes), additional background checks required.

    D CLASS - Dealers
    Able to import and sell firearms.
    As for legal concealed carry, definately not for guns, and many other things for that matter (blades, batons etc) but if you use a baton for self defense youre not likely to get charged by police even though they dont encourage it. Guns for self defence are a nono, and police will always try to charge the vicitm, even if its self defence.

    In most cases the charges dont stick but the victim is left financially ruined as court costs can mount up. The criminal gets legal aid and is usually out of prision before the victims firearms charges are put to rest.

    The polices view here, is that only they should be allowed guns for self defense, even though they are governed by the same firearm laws that we the public are.

    Basically it comes down to "Lawful and Sufficient Purpose" and the fact that police will not charge their own for breaking the rules.

    Heres 2 scenarios for you

    1) Joe Public
    Joe public hears someone in his house and gets his pistol out from his side cabinet

    (The law doesnt say firearms cannot be used for self defence but Joe has already broken the law since he is not storing the firearm safely in accordance with the arms code)

    Joe confronts the robber who pulls a knife and comes in for the attack, Joe shoots robber

    (Joe has now used excessive force in the eyes of the law, even though he legally defended himself the force he used was not equivalent, he also discharged a pistol outside of approved pistol club)

    Basically from here on in Joe will need to defend himself in court at great cost to himself, the police will go for firearms charges, but of course the jury will always find in favour of Joe (in most cases), but not until a lenghty court trial.

    Because we practice case law hear in NZ, the police will go for charges everytime in the hope a jury will find in favour and therefore set a precendent for future cases.

    2) PC Plod (LEO) (actual story)

    A crazed person with a baseball bat goes on a window smashing spree in a small NZ town. PC Plod feels he may need to defend himself so requests permission from his supervisor to arm himself in anticipation of a self defence situation. (He now has lawful purpose to carry a firearm).

    Crazed person advances on the officer who then empties the Glock 17 into the perp shooting him dead on the street.

    Officer is stood down for investigation, no charges laid, self defence clear cut.

    But the officer did break the same rules as Joe, the force could be deemed excessive, the pistol was discharged outside of an approved range, the pistol was carried in anticipation of a self defence scenario aand therefore was not being stored safely.


    The problem we have is a catch 22, in having lawful purpose to carry a pistol we have to break other rules, the only difference being police will not prosecute their own. So in a sense our police feel they are above the law when in fact they are governed by the same laws as Joe Public.

    Even if it means small steps such as being able to defend yourself (with any means) within the confines of your home. Then thats better than nothing. At the moment we are way behind and need some law changes.

    With winter coming in a few months, and darker walks home Im seriously considering getting an ASP Baton.

    I dont think carrying pistols in public is required in NZ just yet we have so few if any firearm related attacks on our streets (its ultra rare), but certainly at home or in your business as we do have our fair share of home invasions and armed robbery (like any place).
    --------------------------------------------------------------
    Evil prevails when good men stand by and do nothing
    --------------------------------------------------------------

  5. #5
    Senior Member Array mi2az's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    651
    Boy, that pretty much sucks. Does NZ have a high crime rate like the UK ?
    "When the people fear the government you have tyranny...when the government fears the people you have liberty."

    --Thomas Jefferson --

  6. #6
    Member Array heylin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    394
    Depends what crimes, if I had to list our 3 most common crimes

    Assualt (Domestic and Fighting)
    Petty theft (car theft, vandalism)
    Robbery (Home and business)

    1st degree Murder and mass killings in NZ are quite rare, manslaughter is more common but still up there in rarity.

    With a population of 4 million if we had 2 or 3 armed hold ups a week in a town of 300,000 people we would call that very high.

    In NZ youre most likley to have your car stolen or be involved in a fatal car accident than to die from a crime. We have a road toll of about 300 deaths per year compared to murders which are less than 10.
    --------------------------------------------------------------
    Evil prevails when good men stand by and do nothing
    --------------------------------------------------------------

  7. #7
    VIP Member Array dukalmighty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    texas
    Posts
    15,179
    For what it's worth at most companies in the US if you have a firearm delivered at work you would probably be fired,but the fact that we have to receive new firearms from dealers by filling out a ATF form that isn't likely anymore
    "Outside of the killings, Washington has one of the lowest crime rates in the country,"
    --Mayor Marion Barry, Washington , DC .

  8. #8
    Member Array heylin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    394
    Turns out our law was amended in 1999 to say "Lawful or Sufficient Purpose"

    Meaning the purpose of self defence is sufficient, even though in doing so it may be unlawful (breaking other rules). The only difference is a police officer will not be charged and a member of the public will.

    Lawful and Sufficient purpose also applies to the carrying of a pistol in a public place, again self defence is sufficient, but it involves breaking other rules.

    Even more interesting is our arms code (a combination of a safety guide and actual law (arms act)) trys to deter people possessing a firearm with the "intention" of using for self defence, even though the law "The Arms Act" doesnt specifically say this.

    So under our Arms Act (the way I read it) we are allowed to carry a firearm within the walls (curtails) of our dwelling provided that it is

    A) carried for a lawful or sufficient purpose
    B) is under users control at all times (meets safety requirments in regards to endangerment of others)
    C) is not discharged without lawful or sufficient purpose

    It would seem our arms code is purely a safety guide.

    This doesnt mean Im going to start walking round the house with a holster on but does make you wonder why our police feel they are above the law in respect to the use of firearms.

    I am going to obtian more info from our police in regards to this and hopefully they can shed some light on my findings.
    --------------------------------------------------------------
    Evil prevails when good men stand by and do nothing
    --------------------------------------------------------------

Sponsored Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. Walmart manager's bad joke
    By poppy37 in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 75
    Last Post: October 12th, 2010, 10:14 PM
  2. Bad: Pharmacy manager to be charged with murder
    By LeCalsey in forum In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
    Replies: 82
    Last Post: June 2nd, 2009, 01:21 AM
  3. Winchester Restaurant Manager...Anti-Gun
    By packinnova in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: February 11th, 2009, 11:02 PM
  4. Prosecutor moves against ice cream manager
    By Tom357 in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 53
    Last Post: November 6th, 2007, 11:58 PM
  5. Chad Vader - Day Shift Manager
    By JT in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: September 7th, 2006, 05:09 AM

Search tags for this page

new zealand knife carry sufficient purpose

Click on a term to search for related topics.