On the other hand, we are very quick to say that the modern malaise is caused by there being no consequences for bad behaviour.
But its always someone else's fault.
Just behave.
A fit and proper person ought to know what fit and proper is.
Printable View
On the other hand, we are very quick to say that the modern malaise is caused by there being no consequences for bad behaviour.
But its always someone else's fault.
Just behave.
A fit and proper person ought to know what fit and proper is.
sorry me old china but have to correct you there yes there is set out in complete detail Arms Act 1983 section 24A complete definition as it applys to firearms and fit and proper person - one that stands out is "have commited an offence " it even details under what Acts i.e Wildlife ActQuote:
Originally Posted by imaca
Based on actual law I believe Jevon McSkimming was totally correct.
In the Arms Act 1983 Section 24A - "Fit and proper person to possess firearm or airgun" (pages 58-59 of the Arms Act 1983):
"(1) For the purposes of this Act, a member of the Police may find a person is not a fit and proper person to be in possession of a firearm or an airgun if the member of the Police is satisfied that 1 or more of the following circumstances exist:"
Then lists circumstances (a) through (n):
(a) charged with or convicted of offences punishable by imprisonment
(b) charged with or convicted under this Act
(d) has temporary protection orders
(h) symptoms of mental or physical illness affecting ability
(i) alcohol abuse or dependency
(j) drug use affecting judgment
(k) gang or organized crime affiliations
(l) patterns of violence, hatred, or extremism
(m) assessed as risk to national security
Additionally the Arms Regulations 1992, Regulation 15A - "Fit and proper person criteria for firearm or airgun" (page 41) adds that Police may find someone not fit and proper if:
Information about time spent overseas cannot be verified (paragraph a)
Named references are unable/unwilling to provide sufficient information (paragraph b)
Police cannot contact or confirm identity of overseas references (paragraph c)
New Zealand law explicitly states what constitutes a fit and proper person and I see no evidence that driving history, aside from a driving related criminal conviction, has any legal basis for consideration.
Could it possibly be that the Police is making up its own law?
Edit for clarity: The above is a summary and I have omitted some of the quoted sections for brevity, you can look up the Arms Act 1983 and the Arms Regulations 1992 documents to read them in full.
https://www.firearmssafetyauthority....5679-Final.pdfQuote:
Originally Posted by Fatberg
providing criteria, not inconsistent with this Act, for finding that a person is not a fit and proper person to be in possession of a firearm or an airgun:
thats section 74 of act generally they always have an out - so yes they can make their own rules but I am not a legal expert
Ah right, they got themselves a "whatever we think" clause inserted. Nice.
I am in two minds over this. A single error in judgement resulting in a ticket does not make a person unfit and the point where the person who recieves and pays for the ticket cannot be proven to be the one who actually did it, is also valid. But repeated suspensions is another story.
The mate who contacted him certainly sounds like he is NOT fit and proper. That person has shown a repititive disregard for the law by multiple convictions and suspensions which in my mind should absolutely mean his is not fit and proper, but that does not mean his concern is not real. The changes that were made were not made to affect one person but the whle system fairly and across the board so I am reluctant to refer to this as corrupt or decietful.
I would ask if a DUI in the coruts is an "infringlent " as such or a crime. I would have thought that it would be crime liek reckless or dangerous driving. To me an infringment is where a ticket is issued- a crime is where you go tot court and the case is examined.
well now the FSA is to review it all-can infringements mean no FAL - can they be used to judge fit and proper - can they be used to cancel a FAL- watch this space -
Another thing is how long does this unfit and not proper label last for? Wasnt there a thread a while back on a guy that had done a few robberies but hes fit and proper to get a fal?
It's all fine, as long as it is applied across the board. That is, if it applies to firearm licences, it needs to apply to police who have access to firearms as part of their job, soldiers who have access to prohibited weapons as part of their job, doctors who have access to class A drugs as part of their job.... see where this is going?
No, don't think so. Because the arms Act specifically says that holding a FAL is a privilege. Therefore that particular privilege can be taken away.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bol Tackshin
I am just not convinced that speeding tickets means one is not a proper person - hells bells when I had my FZR sports bike I used to open it up at times to hand it over speeds - but fit and proper should that be a criteria if I had been caught - I quess some will say yes others no - lets see the way it goes when FSA review it - I dont like the sound of that
Had committed 14 violent crimes from memory.Quote:
Originally Posted by blip
Press Release April 28, 2025Quote:
Originally Posted by XR500
The Council of Licensed Firearms Owners (COLFO) expresses profound alarm and condemnation over the Firearms Safety Authority’s decision to grant a firearms license and police vetting accreditation to Jaye Pukepuke, a former Junior Warriors rugby league player convicted of 15 armed robberies.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/5257...0641722141752/
A speeding ticket is a bit different to multiple disqualifications.Quote:
Originally Posted by Barry the hunter