Thread: Anyone a member of SSANZ or The NZ NSA?

Your "case law" around possession goes back to how the person dispossessed the firearm by supplying it to an unlicensed person, this case doesn't outline possession at all, it outlines supply, in which he dispossessed the firearm by placing it in somebody else's possession.

We don't have any case law surrounding possession of a firearm so it would fall back on case law from other commonwealth countries for guidance, of which there are prime examples.

How would you explain going from having the firearm in your possession to not having it in your possession and it not being stored properly? Are you trying to say it would be perfectly legal for me to go dispossess myself of some firearms by throwing them in the middle of a park? Since you say storage only applies to possession. Otherwise I could throw my firearms over the back fence instead of locking them away after every time I use them.

I ask once again, why are you encouraging people to illegally bury firearms on public land rather than apply for the correct endorsements or store with another person who does have the correct endorsements so they can continue to use and enjoy their firearms?

Originally Posted by Savage1

We don't have any case law surrounding possession of a firearm so it would fall back on case law from other commonwealth countries for guidance, of which there are prime examples.

Im sorry to but you are mistaken. I have read several recent NZ cases that do deal with the issue of possession for the purposes of the Arms Act. Robertson v Police is the most prevalent authority. As I said before, the Courts of New Zealand have expressly said that the meaning of possession for the purpose of the Arms Act is particular to that Act in this country. The meaning of "possession" in the context of other NZ statutes and other jurisidictions is not applicable (thats the stated view of the NZ judiciary.)

I don't think this is worth pursuing any further. Clearly their are several individuals on here who subscribe to the view that burying a firearm will not amount to parting with possession of it (although no-one has yet been able to cite an authority for that view.) You are entitled to your opinion. Lets just leave it there.

Originally Posted by krewzr

Im sorry to but you are mistaken. I have read several recent NZ cases that do deal with the issue of possession for the purposes of the Arms Act. Robertson v Police is the most prevalent authority. As I said before, the Courts of New Zealand have expressly said that the meaning of possession for the purpose of the Arms Act is particular to that Act in this country. The meaning of "possession" in the context of other NZ statutes and other jurisidictions is not applicable (thats the stated view of the NZ judiciary.)

I don't think this is worth pursuing any further. Clearly their are several individuals on here who subscribe to the view that burying a firearm will not amount to parting with possession of it (although no-one has yet been able to cite an authority for that view.) You are entitled to your opinion. Lets just leave it there.

Are the simple questions getting a little hard to answer?