Thread: RNZ Article/Fit & Proper

if they ever introduce gps tracking for petrol tax expect the worst.
go 40km thru a 30k workzone when theres no workers around and cha-ching and fines

Originally Posted by duckdog

Press Release April 28, 2025
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/

But, of course he was fit and proper. He had the ultimate "get out of jail - free pass" - he was a former Junior Warriors player. Some "sport" players are treated as a "special breed", something that most of us never will be.

To be fair, he's done a bit of redemption work too.

Originally Posted by Tahr

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.

The interesting one per the conversation that I was sitting in on is that if it was a privilege to hold a FAL - the administrator of the Arms Act would be able to cancel and issue licences at any time for no reason given, with no right of redress for the license holder. The same act contains rights to challenge a suspension for firearms owners - so the inclusion of the section on privilege might be a bit fluffy. It really needs to go before the court and a determination made - but in reality not a heck of a lot of point if there is a new act in the process of being sorted out.

Originally Posted by Tahr

To be fair, he's done a bit of redemption work too.

To be even fairer to the speeding drivers, he held people up using a knife or gun 15 times, and has now been given a FAL. My 'proportionality' detector has gone haywire on this one.

Originally Posted by Tahr

To be fair, he's done a bit of redemption work too.

Given what we are talking about, no amount of redemption work would be adequate.

I thought that in the new bits written or redacted since xchurch, there was a part that said that any offence committed in other part of other laws could be a motive for fal removal, including offences or crimes committed abroad.

If he has been disqualified from driving, as he said he has in his email, then he has been to court for driving offences. This indicates he has been driving while suspended or committed another driving offence which has resulted in his licence being disqualified by a judge. Reading between his email lines he is a repeat offender for driving offences so presumably he continued driving while his licence had been suspended (assuming it was due to demerits) and then been charged with it. As per the Land Transport Act, driving while suspended is an imprisonable offence ergo he has met the requirements of not being a fit and proper person. There are a couple of assumptions there based on his email of course.

we have all gained a better understanding of the law from this and that has to be a good thing - whether we like it or not

Originally Posted by timattalon

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.

Small amounts of alcohol over the limit qualify as 'Infringements'.....However if the level of alcohol is over 400mcg (breath) or 80mg (Blood) then the penalty can be punishable by imprisonment.....which falls into Section 1 (a).....

This so called "decision" was not made by McSkilling alone , it was made by a group/committee. What the Police are trying to do is to distract the public from asking some very akward questions. Such as how was it possible to use a Police system to download kiddy porn/how much?/how long ?ect ect.
It is a distraction to cover up Police incompetence once again.

Originally Posted by Tankd

This so called "decision" was not made by McSkilling alone , it was made by a group/committee. What the Police are trying to do is to distract the public from asking some very akward questions. Such as how was it possible to use a Police system to download kiddy porn/how much?/how long ?ect ect.
It is a distraction to cover up Police incompetence once again.

Now that makes so much more sense...Now I understand why the fuss is being made....

....oh boy.... locked thread time coming up...

smoke n mirrors, smoke n mirrors...

wait a couple of years, say 5 . if we're lucky we can come into the forum n squawk about how our privilidges/rights were taken away..if we're lucky to have a platform such as this to express our opinions on.

I really hope im wrong.

get out there n use them people.

And just to show how much bullshit can go on for some and not for others....I had a person living under my roof who was arrested for a historic murder....in the 18 months leading up to the court case and the time spent in prison after it on parole and to date I have never had a problem over my FAL and even went through a renewal of it during the time....funny thing was I had to remove all alcohol from the property as a parole condition, even though alcohol was never an issue in the original crime but could buy, sell and keep as many firearms as I liked (a firearm was never used in the crime either)...and that person still lives under my roof...I do not have a friendly policeman-in-my-pocket but just goes to show the police can be picky who they harass.

Originally Posted by Tahr

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.

Totally get that, but it's an inconsistent principle across the legal system - firearm licence holders are definitely held to a different set of expectations and standards, by authorities and the public.