So question was asked today. If two licenced chaps are driving along road and cops discover something amiss,like firearm not secure/loaded etc. is it on the driver..the owner. Or both? Genuine question.
Printable View
So question was asked today. If two licenced chaps are driving along road and cops discover something amiss,like firearm not secure/loaded etc. is it on the driver..the owner. Or both? Genuine question.
IMO surely it sits with the owner of the gun...in saying that maybe the driver should also ask the question
Hamish
Sent from my SM-S911B using Tapatalk
It's the drivers responsibility if a youth isn't wearing a seatbelt, but falls back upon the person not wearing the seatbelt if they're an adult.
So following on that line of logic; I'd say that if the driver has secured their gear or at least has provided the option for the passenger to do so for theirs then the blame would be solely the passenger/owner.
BUT whomever said that the powers that be followed anything logically.
FAL Holder that owns said firearm
In a few years time whoever its registered to
Um how would they know this??
Nickolas Taylor covers "firearms in vehicles" in his advice?
27 September 2022
What to do during a visit from the Police
from here https://www.seriousshooters.co.nz/in...p-your-vehicle
They will probably charge both, both for the offence, both for being an accessory, revoke both licenses on the basis that neither are 'Fit and Proper', confiscate all the firearms, carry out a 'warrantless search' of both owners properties and both will end up doing time.....
...........All on the basis that they have to set an example to other FAL's.....
My confidence in the ability of the Police is probably the same as most LFAO's....:disapointed:
Trick q - the LFAO’s were transporting their firearms in accordance with the law as required of them 😉
Just re read the transport rules. So with a single shot I own I always use a trigger lock as no removable bolt and the rifle is stored out of sight. My bolt rifle the bolt is removed, trigger lock fitted and rifle is out of sight.
What else do they think you can do? What I do is better than a locked case on the rear seat of my ute as a locked case looks just like what it is a gun case.
Hi Micky. It's not a tricky situation. If the owner of the firearm admits ownership, then that's fine. It will get dealt with.
If however, he does not, and no one takes responsibility and ownership, the arms act states that the driver of the vehicle is deemed to be in possession of said firearm. If he licensed or not is irrelevant. He will get charged with whatever they can find.
Been in this situation before. Brutal.
I read the deer stalkers guide to transporting firearms. The last few times Ive bought firearms at a shop they have told me I have to have a trigger lock and tried to sell me one. From what i read all you are required to do is make the firearm inoperable. I do that by removing the bolt and putting a long hasp padlock through the action which seems to me to be inoperable as you cant put the bolt in it.
I actually think the driver has an obligation here. Don't assume your mate's rifle is empty / inoperable when he chucks it in the back of your vehicle, but ask to check. Provide him/her with somewhere to put ammunition (e.g. space in a locked glove box) or confirm where it is stored. You should be fully aware of the location & state of everything firearms-related in your vehicle.
The new rules say nothing about whose firearm it is:
Attachment 242466
Have you noticed how it is plural for the fal holder(s)but singular for the vehicle….
I'm "Old Skool" was drilled into me, always show anyone with you your chamber is empty and weapon unloaded when you stop using the firearm.
I beleive it's the responsibility of the driver for everything in the vehicle.
Makes me wonder how that would play if the driver doesn't have a FAL.
You make alot of sense. I think I remember reading somewhere that if your controlling a car you are responsible for everything in the car and the car itself. Hence why if it's not registered or warranted the driver gets the ticket, not the registered owner.
I could be wrong
In certain circumstances you are liable as the driver, and in other cases not. Seatbelts over the age of whatever it's on you not the driver, under the age you as driver are responsible for the kids being restrained. Commercial vehicle, if carrying DG's you can be driving without a DG endorsement if the guy sitting next to you has one and the correct licence. There's a few other things like that, so I'd say if you are driving a car without a firearms licence but the passenger is licenced then you aren't committing any Arms Act offences. The firearms licence holder would be liable for any transgressions in the state and security of the firearms though.
A - what's the chance of getting pulled over.
B why not just secure it properly?
C fk my m8 , not my gun your honor!
The precedence of driver responsibility aligns with all other legislation in the land transport act, but with typically vague wording in the Arms Act, it leaves room for interpretation, and this is how I would interpret the situation if I was Mr Plod, or Judge Judy;
If both occupants are FAL holders, it is surely the responsibility of the driver to ensure the firearms in his/her vehicle are being transported in accordance with the law. I don't see a scenario in which the driver could plead ignorance to incorrect transportation and lay culpability on the passenger.
If the driver is not a FAL holder, I'm sure a good prosecution lawyer could argue that correct transportation protocols are still under the drivers responsibility as they knowingly accepted to transport them, even if the firearms are in the possession/supervision of the passenger with the FAL. Equally, a good lawyer for the defense of said driver could argue that the non licensed driver has no knowledge of the requirements and is likely to get away with any repercussions.
As a responsible LAFO, I really do get pissed off when others in our fraternity (or maybe they're not) refer to firearms as WEAPONS.
FFS, when are you going to learn that the police, military, and para-military are the people who use weapons.
This fraternity uses firearms.
The original post quite clearly posed the hypothetical of two licenced chaps, with firearms in vehicle, being stopped for some reason. And then the question of who is responsible.
A number of responses suggest that the driver, or the licence holder, or the owner, or variations of all three, are responsible.
This is what the Arms Regulations 1992 actually says:
19B Conditions relating to storage of firearms in vehicles during transportation
(1) Unless otherwise permitted by a member of the Police, if a firearms licence holder is transporting firearms or ammunition in a vehicle on a road or public access way,—
(a) firearms must be concealed from view from outside of the vehicle; and
(b) firearms must be made inoperable if readily possible by removing the bolt or another vital part (which should be kept on the licence holder’s person or stored out of sight separately from the firearms) or, if that is not possible (for example, because the firearm is a lever action or semiautomatic or single shot firearm), firearms must be fitted with a trigger lock or travel in a locked case or carry bag; and
(c) firearms must not be loaded with ammunition in the breech, barrel, chamber, or magazine; and
(d) ammunition must be concealed from view from outside of the vehicle; and
(e) ammunition must be stored separately from any firearms and be in a locked glovebox or similar storage area where practicable.
(2) Subclause (1) does not apply to a firearms licence holder if—
(a) the holder is using a vehicle on a farm and undertaking farm-related activities, or is actively engaged in legally authorised hunting or wild animal or animal pest control on farmland, public land, or land used for an agricultural, a horticultural, or a silviculture business on which they are permitted to use firearms; and
(b) the licence holder is in the vehicle with the firearms or in the immediate vicinity of the vehicle in which the firearms are located.
(3) Any firearms or ammunition may be left unattended in a vehicle during a break in a journey for up to 60 minutes if—
(a) the licence holder remains in the immediate area or vicinity of the vehicle; and
(b) the firearms or ammunition are secured and out of sight; and
(c) if possible, vital parts of firearms remain in the licence holder’s possession; and
(d) the vehicle is locked, the windows are closed, and the keys remain in the holder’s possession.
Pay particular attention to sub-clause (2) which says that sub-clause (1) DOES NOT APPLY --- if-
If those firearms remain within your immediate possession, lots of the "do this, do that" do not apply. The moment you are away from the immediate vicinity of your firearms for more than 60 minutes, or if they are in the bowels of an inter-island ferry, you are then obliged to comply with the required safe storage requirements.
If you want to remove the bolt, fit a trigger lock, etc., etc., go right ahead, but the Regulations only require such things in specific circumstances.
Responsibility rests with the licence holder.
Easy to comprehend, no tricky grey jargon speak or ambiguous text, yet people still have selective comprehension and make up their own shit for the rest.
btw Myself and my son have been stopped about a year ago at a random early morning drink/drive check point (stopping all traffic) on our way to the range. The police did the breath/warrant/rego checks and asked all friendly like when done where we off to and I replied a club meet at the shooting range. A very quick glance thru back windows (Isuzu) and the officer said..."have a nice day guys" then off we went. The process was so quick, the officers wanted me to open my mouth first only to answer their question into breath analyser before I even had a chance to say anything else. All the shooting stuff was well hidden from sight under random empty shopping bags and the dog's cleaning bath towels that live in the Isuzu. Important to be friendly and open as you have no good reason to be otherwise, but to only invite trouble for yourself.
1b is a good bit to remember...the bolt action rifle with bolt out and say in your belt bag with ammunition in glovebox........does this say/state/imply that said bolt action rifle DOESNT HAVE to be in a big bulky pain in the arse locked case????
I really really really hope so.
I would suggest that you re-read the WHOLE of 19B.
Unless you are not absolved of the requirements as stated in 19B(2), then 19B(1) applies, i.e. (a) -'Concealed from view'. There is not a specific requirement to lock it in a big-arsed case (unless you want to).
There are a lot of ands and ifs. Read it all. Then read it again, slowly. Get your head around what is actually required by the Regulation.
I don't own a case for mine but since one is a single shot I always use a trigger lock on both and they travel out of sight as the law requires.
You might find this info interesting. It is written by a Lawyer who I understand consults to the NZDA.
Section 6 – The police stop your vehicle when you are the driver
- Recent law changes mean that the police have full access and connection between Land
Transport NZ and the Firearms Licencing records.
- If you are stopped by the police, for example driving away from a shooting area, gun range
or hunting ground -
- You must give them your driver’s licence and give them your name, address and date of
birth. Your passengers do not have to give any details or answer any questions at all.
- You do not have to answer any questions about if you have firearms in your car, or any
other surrounding questions at all. In a vehicle you are transporting firearms, you are NOT
carrying them (24 B(1)(b)) (see Section 1 above).
- The police have no right to search your vehicle without evidence that a potential crime
has been committed. Simply adhering to your rights by stating (vii) above, and stating “no
comment” or “there is no legal requirement for me to answer that question”, cannot be a
reason to invoke a warrantless search on your vehicle; this would be an unlawful police
search.
- The police can ask to inspect your firearms and ammunition and where they are kept and
view your security arrangements in your vehicle (24B(1) (d)), but they must give you 7
days notice of their desire to do this (24B (3) (a)).
And by making no comment and not showing what they want to see you are making ya self look like a chump.....rather than complying, showing and moving on.
..assuming you are complying....the later seems easier to me....but then im no lawyer
Hamish
Sent from my SM-S911B using Tapatalk
The other side of that coin is that the Police have to follow the law also. Warrantless searches are only allowed when there is reasonable cause to believe a crime is being committed - and if there isn't reasonable cause, then who is being a dick? You, or the Police acting outside of their powers?
Each to their own, if i get pulled over with gun in the car then i will gladly show the status of gun....which will be inoperable as per the law. Save me from looking like a chump and compounding and issue thats not an issue
Hamish
Sent from my SM-S911B using Tapatalk
rifles travel in gun bag /case gunlocks on and out of sight,shotguns likewise .bolts ammo etc secured in locked boxes secured by hefty padlock to heavy chain to body of truck.Itry to avoid interaction with gentlemen in blue uniforms as much as possible as i look upon this akin to visiting a dentist or proctologist! the two occasions I have had both times cops were avid duckshooters and cursed the fact they had to work!!!
Section 19B makes no mention of a situation involving two licensed persons, and assumes the license holder is the driver. So the original question has not been clarified.