Thread: More stupidity

Originally Posted by Ricochet

IMMEDIATE SUPERVISION
No matter how old you are, if you do not have a firearms
licence but want to use a firearm, you may do so only under the
immediate supervision of someone who has a firearms licence.
In other words, the person with the licence must be with the
shooter, and close enough to take control of the firearm if
necessary. To meet this requirement the supervisor cannot be
using a firearm at the same time. Generally, this means that
there will be only one firearm between the two people.


Close enough to take control of the firearm if necessary. Unless you deem kicking it out of their hands as acceptable then I would suggest that 'within arms length' is correct.

Taken from the police Arms Code. NOT law. NOT regulation.

Are you willing to accept police made up policy? Like their policies around MSSA length, safe wall thickness, caliber import restrictions, special reasons etc.

Originally Posted by systolic

Taken from the police Arms Code. NOT law. NOT regulation.

Are you willing to accept police made up policy? Like their policies around MSSA length, safe wall thickness, caliber import restrictions, special reasons etc.

If you are so smart , then get the bloke who lent him the shotgun off the charge ???????

Originally Posted by Tankd

If you are so smart , then get the bloke who lent him the shotgun off the charge ???????

PM me his details, I know someone that will have a hard look. One of the two best firearms barristers in NZ.

Originally Posted by systolic

Taken from the police Arms Code. NOT law. NOT regulation.

Are you willing to accept police made up policy? Like their policies around MSSA length, safe wall thickness, caliber import restrictions, special reasons etc.

...but the courts create common law, which in the absence of a legislative definition will apply. Arguing on the internet and living in your ivory tower (or under your bridge...) proves nothing - it is for the courts to determine parliaments intention.
10ring's definition of immediate above gives the literal and practical interpretation that a court will rely on.
I'm not going to look through case law to prove a point, over the internet with a cock who likes arguing - I can't be bothered.

Originally Posted by systolic

Taken from the police Arms Code. NOT law. NOT regulation.

Are you willing to accept police made up policy? Like their policies around MSSA length, safe wall thickness, caliber import restrictions, special reasons etc.

So to clarify, Are you saying the Arms code is wrong? Or unreasonable?

I agree thats it's not law just because it is in the Arms code. But if I am supervising an unlicensed shooter, that is what I do, not because I believe the Arms code to be law, but because I believe it is the right thing to do by the person I am responsible for. While they are under my supervision, it is my responsibility to ensure they are safe no matter what happens.

Originally Posted by timattalon

So to clarify, Are you saying the Arms code is wrong? Or unreasonable?

I agree thats it's not law just because it is in the Arms code. But if I am supervising an unlicensed shooter, that is what I do, not because I believe the Arms code to be law, but because I believe it is the right thing to do by the person I am responsible for. While they are under my supervision, it is my responsibility to ensure they are safe no matter what happens.

You could certainly do a lot worse than using the Code as a best practice guideline. Good on you.