Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the NZ Hunting and Shooting Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

DPT Darkness


User Tag List

Results 1 to 15 of 246
Like Tree229Likes

Thread: Wtf

Threaded View

  1. #11
    Member gadgetman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Christchurch
    Posts
    17,870
    Quote Originally Posted by Koshogi View Post
    If your FAL is revoked you can no longer use or possess a firearm under any circumstances.

    From the Police Arms Manual
    Section 49A of the Arms Act 1983 “Unlawful possession of a firearm or airgun after revocation of Firearms Licence” with a penalty of 1 year’s imprisonment or a fine
    of $4000 or both was created in 1992. This was for the specific purpose of creating a substantial offence for firearm licence holders whose licence had been revoked
    either for no longer being fit and proper or for failing to respond to their call-in notice.

    This offence, unlike other offences or provisions of the Arms Act 1983, does not specifically allow a defence of being under the immediate supervision of a licence holder. It does provide for an authorisation expressly or by implication, by or pursuant to this Act, to be in possession of a firearm. Whether or not this allows by implication the defence of immediate supervision is a matter of opinion at this stage, as it has not yet been tested in Court.

    The intent of the offence was to ensure that firearms were not possessed by revoked persons and would therefore be unable to continue to lawfully use them.

    To suggest that the immediate supervision defence was available makes a mockery of the law and if a prosecution under Section 49A was properly presented then it
    should succeed.

    In the event, prima facie, an offence has been committed IF A REVOKED PERSON IS IN POSSESSION. The burden of proof is on the defendant to prove that their
    possession was lawful if the defence of immediate supervision is used.


    It would appear based on others comments that this individual has been hunting since the incident, if this is the case, he has committed an offence if he used a firearm at any time.

    We don't need more laws. We need better enforcement of existing laws and appropriate punishments by the courts.
    Most of that is an opinion, much like the military pattern pistol grip saga. It would more be a matter of interpretation of possession I would have thought. If the above could be applied then no unlicensed person would be allowed to use a firearm even under supervision.
    There are only three types of people in this world. Those that can count, and those that can't!

 

 

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Welcome to NZ Hunting and Shooting Forums! We see you're new here, or arn't logged in. Create an account, and Login for full access including our FREE BUY and SELL section Register NOW!!