Thread: Should this dropkick get his FAL back?

Your blue cod is looking secondhand?

Interesting point in question. Anyone know the answer for certain
No Bush lawyer answers required

Tommy is correct.

[QUOTE=10

Begs the following question
If you did not know that someone had lost their FAL, and took them out under supervision, is ignorance a defence or are you in the brown stuff?
Point being that unless it is a high profile person like in this case, it is unlikely to be public knowledge.

[QUOTE=Pengy;537863][QUOTE=10

Begs the following question
If you did not know that someone had lost their FAL, and took them out under supervision, is ignorance a defence or are you in the brown stuff?
Point being that unless it is a high profile person like in this case, it is unlikely to be public knowledge.[/QUOTE]
Have you been taking silly question hormones again Pengy?

Originally Posted by 10-Ring

Tommy is correct.

Reference?

Originally Posted by GravelBen

Reference?

Section 49A of the Arms Act 1983

Originally Posted by Savage1

Section 49A of the Arms Act 1983

Cheers. That section says possession is an offence, but nothing about providing it them to use under supervision being an offense - so I guess in Pengy's theoretical situation above the supervisor would be ok and the resonsibility lies with the revoked licence person.

S.22 lists supervision by a licence holder as a good defence for unlawful possession charges but only specifically mentions S.20 and S.21, do you know if it has been tested in court whether that applies to S.49A charges as well? Obviously better to avoid the situation, but it could be an interesting argument.

I know a guy who chose to surrender his licence in the past (because he thought it would get revoked due to criminal charges, though he's straightened his life out now). In that situation I guess he could still use a firearm under supervision now because he did surrender it instead of waiting for it to be revoked?

He broke a lot of the rules FAL should be revoked no question at all.

The cops gave, or had to give, that guy Jenner from Hamilton his licence back and had to pay $10 000 costs.

And he pleaded guilty selling guns to a gang member.

Why shouldn't someone who only lent one gun to a mate not get his back? It's up to the judge to decide. Not internet experts on here.
That's why we have judges to decide, not angry keyboard commandos.

Originally Posted by systolic

The cops gave, or had to give, that guy Jenner from Hamilton his licence back and had to pay $10 000 costs.

And he pleaded guilty selling guns to a gang member.

Why shouldn't someone who only lent one gun to a mate not get his back? It's up to the judge to decide. Not internet experts on here.
That's why we have judges to decide, not angry keyboard commandos.

Me thinks that many judges would do good to heed some direction from "keyboard commando's", as at the end of the day it is us that get restricted by the action of the "others", more than the "others."

The sentence for firearms offences should be taken out of the courts hands, if found guilty the sentence should be mandatory not up to some pussy judge there are to many judges handing out soft sentences
that have no deterrent effect on the offenders like the twat we are talking about.

Originally Posted by systolic

The cops gave, or had to give, that guy Jenner from Hamilton his licence back and had to pay $10 000 costs.

And he pleaded guilty selling guns to a gang member.

Why shouldn't someone who only lent one gun to a mate not get his back? It's up to the judge to decide. Not internet experts on here.
That's why we have judges to decide, not angry keyboard commandos.

Police did themselves no favours in their handling of Dale's case.

Originally Posted by systolic

The cops gave, or had to give, that guy Jenner from Hamilton his licence back and had to pay $10 000 costs.

And he pleaded guilty selling guns to a gang member.

Why shouldn't someone who only lent one gun to a mate not get his back? It's up to the judge to decide. Not internet experts on here.
That's why we have judges to decide, not angry keyboard commandos.

The opening post asked for our OPINIONS on if we thought he should get his licence back.

No