(special report)
The New Zealand Police wrongly granted Australian terrorist Brenton Tarrant a firearms licence despite a number of irregularities in his application.
The disclosure came on the Platform website, 16 August, when host Michael Laws interviewed the president of the Police Association Chris Cahill who revealed that police should not have approved a firearm licence.
“I certainly think he (Tarrant) shouldn’t have been given a licence,” said Chris Cahill.
Earlier he said he did not consider police had correctly followed the firearm licence vetting process.
“To have two referees that hardly knew him was inappropriate – totally accept that.”
The Police Association president added that the reason Tarrant came to New Zealand was that he knew, once he was given a firearm licence, he could buy semi-automatic assault rifles which he would not be allowed to buy in Australia.
“I certainly think police own – or should own he shouldn’t have been given a firearms licence.”
The Royal Commission of Enquiry into the Terrorist Attack on Christchurch Mosques concluded “we find that New Zealand Police’s administration of the firearms licensing system did not meet required standards. The reasons for this include a lack of guidance and training for licensing staff and incomplete guidance for dealing with applications where nominated referees cannot be interviewed in person. on 15 March, 2019”
On 1 September 2017 just 15 days after arriving in New Zealand, Brenton Tarrant paid his application fee for a firearm licence. Two referees are required. Tarrant first named his sister and a gaming friend but police rejected his sister because she could not be spoken to in person. In the end, gaming friend’s parent was added as a referee.
On 4 October police visited Tarrant at his Dunedin home, interviewed him and inspected his firearm storage facilities. It was approved. A Waikato based vetting officer interviewed the two referees. A Dunedin based firearms officer approved Brenton Tarrant’s licence application on 16 November 2017. On 4 December he made his first firearm purchase.
He set about other purchases. For example on 24 March 2018, he spent $1,358.00 at Gun City Dunedin on 2,000 rounds of .223 calibre Remington 55Gr SP ammunition, an extraordinary quantity.
It was reported the retailer notified the police.
Well much as I don’t admire Police Union president Chris Cahill for past tirades, I have to admire his honesty in admitting the police goofed – tragically so – in giving Brenton Tarrant a firearm licence. Up until now, everyone has been in denial or silence, over the police failure.
Interesting to wonder, if police had refused to grant the Australian visitor a firearm licence, the 51 lives might never have been tragically lost. Which makes police indirect accomplices to the crime?
Were the police told to issue Tarrant with a licence? If so, by whom? The Christchurch shooting achieved the same desired outcome as the Port Arthur shooting, firearms control, for which a patsy is in prison for the rest of his life. Is Tarrant in prison here or living quietly in the Australian outback?
RD’s question needs an answer, will we ever get one??? ( don’t hold your breath!!”)
Does the NZ Police have a liaison offer based in Canberra with the Okker Federal Police??? I’d put up good money that they DO !!! THEN, because Tarrant was an
overseas visitor to NZ why did the NZ Police NOT have their man in Canberra run Tarrant thru the OZ database BEFORE issuing him with the NZ license???
IF they had they’d have found that Tarrant had a rap sheet & was well KNOWN to the okker plods!!!! End of story— NO NZ Firearm’s license issued.
The fact that they did not contact their man in Canberra leads me to support the tone of RD’s comment above. i.e. I smell a LARGE RAT !!!!!!
p.s. Martyn Bryant was NOT the trigger puller at Port Arthur!!! Do your research.
P.S.
Why has the police removal of a stash of firearms from BOTH mosques been covered up & only reported on ONCE ??? How can mosques or any entity have possession of firearms ??? Why did the ” cone of silence” descend on this reported fact????
Who was really running this false flag operation??? Why did Killary Clinton’s enforcer ( John Podester) leave Chr.Ch very shortly after the mosque incidents???? & what was he doing in our parliament talking with our ex-illustrious leader & Grant Robinson a few days prior to the Chr Ch incidents????
CAN ANYONE ELSE SMELL A DEAD RAT ?????
Tonight a drive by shooting in Pakuranga. That’s what Cahill and Labour should have focused on – gangs and criminals instead of needling law-abiding firearm owning public
This a reminder of how Crusher Collins was going to really sort the Boy Racers & here we are a decade later & we STILL have Boy Racers ! now add in the Drive by Shootings ? No matter what new strict Laws are brought in , we have “MORE” Firearms Offenders ! So what can our Police do ? >> Implement a decent Reward ( Funded by Lotto ), for good info about illegal Firearms ether within N.Z. ,or Guns /Pistols Etc. crossing our Border ? ( most likely they arrive with Drug shipments ) . /// Going back , the Tragic El Nor mass murders in Ch Ch ? yes the N.Z. Police should have made a better job of vetting Tarrant , on the other hand they did a WONDERFUL JOB , on the day arresting him at Large alive , before he could commit more Murders, as that was the intention . // On that subject Tarrant should be DEPORTED back over the Tasman ASAP , as the Australians soon deport Kiwis at the drop of a hat. //// Tarrant is a real “HOT” Potato ? make no mistake ,let the Aussies have him , as Terrorist Groups could take Hostages ! until he’s handed over ? Anyway why should the Kiwi Taxpayer Feed & Board him ? He’s done enough damage, especially to Law abiding Legal Firearm owners .
Hallelujah! Finally the Police admit THEY screwed up and 51 people died. We could have saved hundreds of millions of dollars (gun buy back + Royal Commission + registry) if the Police had done THEIR job. Still don’t see why the officer who screwed up is nameless and blameless, massive cover up. Who are they protecting and why?
It seems to me that administration of the firearms regulations and system became less competent because of complacency.
The system had been working very well and preventing harmful incidents involving PROPERLY VETTED and licensed citizens.
There was relaxation of the rules related to “military style” firearms and high capacity magazines and Jacinda’s Labour government altered some of the system in ways that made it easier for Tarrant to obtain a license, the weapons he wanted and large quantities of ammo with police approval and inadequate assessment.
The culture of active and influential members of the Labour Part is very anti-firearms.
As a formed member, I often heard LFOs referred to as “those horrible gun people”.
Following the mosque tragedy Labour Party members were told that legislative responses to Tarrant’s crime would be made after further investigations, EXCEPT FOR CHANGED TO THE FIREARMS REGULATIONS that had to be changed right away.
This decision clearly indicated the intention to exploit the tragic event and shift “blame” from poor administration of the system to responsible and law abiding Licensed Firearm Owners who had no involvement or influence in what happenned.
The misrepresented “buyback” was a confiscation of personal property (with compensation) from people that had done nothing wrong or harmful at all.
This confiscation cost taxpayers a huge amount of money and deprived innocent citizens of ownership of their personal property against their will.
Many people did utilize the opportunity to cash-in firearms they no longer wanted and purchase new ones.
Lots of semi-automatic sporting firearms (unlike the weapons used by Tarrant) were confiscated.
No-one knows what percentage of the targeted “military style” items were actually surrendered or how many are now illegally owned by people that refused to comply. Reference to some sales figures and surrender of such items suggests that most were NOT SURRENDERED.
The people of Jacinda’s Labour government should have deferred changes of the system until after the report of the Royal Commission but their culture of prejudice against all owners and users of firearms prevented this rational choice.
I am not blaming anyone but Tarrant for what he alone did to so many innocent victims but, as stated in the report of the Royal Commission, LFO’s were not complicit or responsible for the tragedy in any way at all.
The problem with the zealous anti-gun people is that most of them have no involvement, experience or understanding of firearms and the fit and proper citizens that own and use them.
In the minds of these misinformed people, all owners and users of firearms are potential Tarrant’s, school shooters or terrorists because a tiny minority of people have committed such crimes.
Nicole McKee has been wrongly accused of being a “lobbyist for gun owners”.
Understanding of her actual agendas and efforts contradict this propaganda and clearly show that she is and has always been an advocate and active promoter of FIREARMS SAFETY.
Nicole has the experience, knowledge and common sense to understand that discrimination against citizens to dissuade and prohibit them from legally owning and using firearms will not promote the safe and responsible use of firearms just as prohibition of alcohol did not prevent people from drinking it.
Nicole has devoted a lot of time and effort to considering how regulations could be changed to prevent the misuse of firearms and improve safety for users and especially the general public.
Her recommendations are being considered and will be organized into a formal proposal that people can then read, understand and consider for themselves but that document is not yet available.
Nicole is being criticized, misrepresented and even accused of complicity in a terrible crime, by prejudiced people that are making assumptions of proposed legislation they have not even seen yet.
Nicole’s current critics not only lack proper understanding of firearms and the people that own and use them they also lack the honesty and integrity to wait for and consider the details of her proposed changes before rejecting them.
It appears that these anti-gun zealots and their associates in politics, academia and media would prefer to misinform and bias us against proposed legislation that is not yet available so that we will be persuaded not to read understand and form our own opinions about what Nicole suggests.
My suggestion for sensible people that desire fair, reasonable and beneficial firearms regulations that encourage compliance and cooperation is to INDICATE YOUR SUPPORT BY JOINING THE ACT PARTY and suggesting this to other sensible people as well.