Thread: Fastways Courier Calling The Cops?

Originally Posted by Jexla

...Why is it not all good to send firearms or ammo and not declare them, apart from the fact it voids your insurance and breaks the companies terms of use or conditions of carriage?

Don't need any other reason, the ones you listed are fine. Bit like saying "Why is it not all good to steal other people's stuff, apart from the fact it's illegal and a shitty thing to do?", don't need any other reasons!

If you owned a business and had rules your customers had to follow, if customers deliberately break those rules you would be within your rights to tell them to eff off.

Isn’t it ridiculous that the reason all of these courier companies either don’t ship rifles, or only do with stringent measures in place, is because their workers don’t do their jobs properly?
“Our workers are useless and can’t do their jobs, therefore we’ll penalise the customer instead.”
If I did my job at work poorly, it certainly wouldn’t be the customer’s arse that was boss’ boot required dislodging from.

Im pretty sure a rifle can only be delivered or collected to/by the person whose name is actually on the parcel/ police mail order permit.
Technically they are correct as it should only be delivered to the person whose name is on the parcel & permit irrespective of if the "other" person is a licence holder or not.

Originally Posted by ChrisW

Im pretty sure a rifle can only be delivered or collected to/by the person whose name is actually on the parcel/ police mail order permit.

There is no law that says that. Only "Police Policy" which is not law.

Originally Posted by stug

There is no law that says that. Only "Police Policy" which is not law.

It could be argued that the person collecting it has committed an offense as they are receiving a firearm via mail and did not get a police mail order form.

Having one person simply get a police permit signed saying that the person is "fit and proper" - and delivering it to (or having it collected by) someone completely different goes against the purpose of the legislation and im sure the police would win, or parliament would tweak the wording slightly for clarity / add a note (**for the purpose of this legislation the purchaser is the receiver). IMO the purpose is clear, if poorly written.

Sec 43A. Mail order sale of firearm or ammunition
(1) Every person commits an offence and is liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $1,000 who sells by mail order a firearm or any ammunition for a firearm or restricted weapon otherwise than pursuant to a written order—
(a) signed by the purchaser; and
(b)bearing an endorsement signed by a member of the Police and stating that the member of the Police—
(i)has inspected the purchaser’s firearms licence; and
(ii) is satisfied that the purchaser is a fit and proper person to purchase that firearm or ammunition.

Yes but you don't need the Police mail order form, only a piece of paper signed by a Police Officer to state that you have a firearms licence and are a fit an proper person.
Also lots of firearms get sent around the country that have not been sold, ie sent away to get a suppressor fitted, so you don't need a mail order purchase form for that.

Originally Posted by Clint Ruin

And if there is an issue with delivery? They tear the box/drop it/lose it what then?
How do you think a insurance claim will go ?

We post dozens of parcels per week, the items are never listed on the parcel, made claims for lost parcels no problems.

Correct - Proper mail order form or signed piece of paper does not matter.
I think the intent is clear though, and that is that the purchaser (who by all intents should be the receiver, as is the purpose of the legislation) needs something signed by police to say they are fit and proper.
The argument would be "for the purpose of the legislation is the purchaser (or should the purchaser) be the receiver" - and I cant imagine who would want to battle the police on that one.

Correct many firearms are shipped around with no mail order form. You don't need the form if its going to a licensed dealer. (most gunsmiths and stores are licensed dealers).

Section 73 a - you could have a contract with someone to pick up the package from the courier company and deliver it to you. A written and signed piece of paper should be enough to meet the requirements of a contract.

73 Savings in respect of carriers and persons authorised to exercise powers of seizure
(1)
Notwithstanding anything in this Act, but subject to any prohibitions, limitations, restrictions, or conditions imposed by or pursuant to any regulations made under this Act,—
(a)
any carrier may have possession of a firearm, airgun, pistol, imitation firearm, restricted weapon, ammunition, or explosive in the course of carriage under a contract of carriage:
(b)
any person who seizes any article, being a firearm, airgun, pistol, imitation firearm, restricted weapon, ammunition, or explosive, in the exercise of a power conferred on him by any Act may have possession of that article so long as he is acting in the exercise of that power and in connection with his official duties.
(2)
In subsection (1)(a), carrier includes any postal operator within the meaning of the Postal Services Act 1998.
Section 73(2): substituted, on 1 April 1998, by section 62(1) of the Postal Services Act 1998 (1998 No 2).

Trying to argue that the friend you have picking it up for you is a "carrier"? I dunno. I think you are clutching at straws and again would be viewed as trying to circumvent the purpose of the act.

The term "carrier" would then need to be clarified or defined and it would probably be deemed to be a person who acts as a carrier is a professional capacity (keep in mind the "carrier" does not need a firearms licence).
If it was not deemed to be a person acting in "professional capacity" i.e licensed courier driver - then it would open the gates for anyone (not just couriers), with or without a firearms license to pickup guns for you with only a signed piece of paper from yourself - which would never happen.

When it comes down to it none of this really matters. Fact is we know how the Police interpret it (police policy), and how the couriers interpret it or what they follow (police policy), and we know the purpose of the act.
If anyone wanted to go to court and fight it, and argue that technically it does not say that the purchaser *is* the receiver then more power to you, but i think it would be a fruitless & costly exercise that would gain nothing other than a clarification & precedent that the purchaser is to be the receiver for the intent of the legislation.

Originally Posted by ChrisW

Trying to argue that the friend you have picking it up for you is a "carrier"? I dunno. I think you are clutching at straws and again would be viewed as trying to circumvent the purpose of the act.

The term "carrier" would then need to be clarified or defined and it would probably be deemed to be a person who acts as a carrier is a professional capacity (keep in mind the "carrier" does not need a firearms licence).
If it was not deemed to be a person acting in "professional capacity" i.e licensed courier driver - then it would open the gates for anyone (not just couriers), firearms license or not to pickup guns for you with a signed piece of paper from yourself which would never happen and again is against the purpose of the legislation.

When it comes down to it none of this really matters. Fact is we know how the Police interpret it (police policy), and how the couriers interpret it or what they follow (police policy), and we know the purpose of the act.
If anyone wanted to go to court and fight it, and argue that technically it does not say that the purchaser *is* the receiver then more power to you, but i think it would be a fruitless & costly exercise that would gain nothing other than a clarification or precedent that the purchaser is to be the receiver for the intent of the legislation.

what legislation are you referring to?

Originally Posted by stug

what legislation are you referring to?

Arms Act 1983

Where does it say anything in there about the purchaser being the receiver?

Originally Posted by stug

Where does it say anything in there about the purchaser being the receiver?

It doesn't - that's what im saying. That would be your argument (that is only says "purchaser"), and their argument (and rightly so imo) would be that for the legislation to work as intended, the purchaser is the receiver.

This would then, imo, either be amended into the act / a point added that says "for the purpose of the arms act 1983, section 43A the purchaser is to be the receiver" - or a precedent set (by the police winning) that for the purpose of the act & for the legislation to work as intended the purchaser needs to be the receiver.

Surely you cant be trying to argue that having one person fill out a form and be deemed "fit and proper" and having someone else picking it up who can then do what they want with it is the act working as intended. I cant see a court would side with you -they would probably say that its assumed the purchaser is the receiver (which would be the act working properly) which would then set the precedent.

if you have a licensed firearm owner pick up the parcel and deliver it to you then the act is working as intended.