Thread: Firearms Storage Inspection ....

Originally Posted by Tussock

They assume that no one knows the law. But I'm reading the arms act right now. In the age of the internet you can have a pdf copy in about twenty seconds. So now we all know the law and they do not.

True, Tussock. And in Addition to that they assume that their word will be taken as law !!!

I've downloaded both the 1983 arms act and the 1992 "Arms Regulations" and plan to read them both and know my rights !!

They're actually in reasonably plain english and reasonably readable.

What I have yet to stumble across is any legal standing around the "Arms Code" . It would appear on that basis that its nothing other than the Cops interpretation of the Act and Regulations such as they are ...

As regards my original rant, the Arms Regulations deal with storage in section 19 as follows :

"
the holder, where he or she has both a firearm and ammunition
for it in his or her possession, either—
(i) shall take reasonable steps to ensure that the ammunition
is not stored in such a way that a person
who obtains access to the firearm also obtains access
to the ammunition; or
(ii) shall ensure that, where the ammunition is stored
with the firearm, the firearm is not capable of
being discharged:
"

Tim

Originally Posted by SiB

The Judge has the last word! We have to think the way he/she might think!

And the pistol grip saga shws they over-step, Cat E seems the AO can make up the rules....cat A is meant to be minimal.

regards

I just got a lockable gun safe...with a separate compartment for Ammo. with a separate key but its within the same cabinet.
The funny thing is that the guy who checked it out for my interview, just came in didn't even open to see inside. Just knocked on it with his knuckles and that was it. he walked out.
Even funnier thing was:
1) have you ever thought about taking your own or someones life ? And then he himself answers the questions "of course you will say no", without even letting me respond.
Halerious stuff.

Yes but if people keep pushing their luck and ignoring the Arms Code, eg not storing bolt seperatly because they're to lazy, the Police may decide that they're not "fit and proper" and revoke your licence under sec 27 of the Arms Act. Then you wouldn't even be able to possess an air rifle.

If you follow the Arms Code then they could never argue that you aren't "fit and proper", if you ignore it because it isn't law then you may be giving them grounds to revoke your licence. Some small minor things just aren't worth the hassle.

Originally Posted by Savage1

Yes but if people keep pushing their luck and ignoring the Arms Code, eg not storing bolt seperatly because they're to lazy, the Police may decide that they're not "fit and proper" and revoke your licence under sec 27 of the Arms Act. Then you wouldn't even be able to possess an air rifle.

If you follow the Arms Code then they could never argue that you aren't "fit and proper", if you ignore it because it isn't law then you may be giving them grounds to revoke your licence. Some small minor things just aren't worth the hassle.

The argument was that the bolt had to be seperate from the firearm AND seperated from the ammunition ... 3 seperate places

Are you saying that the Arms code says that that (3 seperate locations) should be the case ?

I was given "the latest" version of the arms code last night and I cant see that in there.



Tim

Originally Posted by Savage1

Yes but if people keep pushing their luck and ignoring the Arms Code, eg not storing bolt seperatly because they're to lazy, the Police may decide that they're not "fit and proper" and revoke your licence under sec 27 of the Arms Act. Then you wouldn't even be able to possess an air rifle.

If you follow the Arms Code then they could never argue that you aren't "fit and proper", if you ignore it because it isn't law then you may be giving them grounds to revoke your licence. Some small minor things just aren't worth the hassle.

They can't argue you're not fit and proper because you don't follow some guidelines that you don't have to.

Originally Posted by Toby

They can't argue you're not fit and proper because you don't follow some guidelines that you don't have to.

well Toby, they can.

whether it stands up in court if you decide to appeal and it gets in front of a judge is another story.

A bit of a bullshit argument then

Originally Posted by kiwi39

The argument was that the bolt had to be seperate from the firearm AND seperated from the ammunition ... 3 seperate places

Are you saying that the Arms code says that that (3 seperate locations) should be the case ?

I was given "the latest" version of the arms code last night and I cant see that in there.



Tim

I was speaking in a broader sense where people keep saying "but the arms code isn't law". I think that if you follow the arms code and use common sense then you should be fine.

Originally Posted by Toby

They can't argue you're not fit and proper because you don't follow some guidelines that you don't have to.

eg, There is nothing in law that says you can't walk through town holding a loaded and actioned rifle in your hands in plain sight if you are on your way to go shoot tin cans at a mates place, but it isn't something a fit and proper person would do. A fit and proper person would at least have it unloaded and in a bag.

Originally Posted by Savage1

eg, There is nothing in law that says you can't walk through town holding a loaded and actioned rifle in your hands in plain sight if you are on your way to go shoot tin cans at a mates place, but it isn't something a fit and proper person would do. A fit and proper person would at least have it unloaded and in a bag.

Yeah I get what you mean, I guess it depends on the situation.

Originally Posted by Savage1

I was speaking in a broader sense where people keep saying "but the arms code isn't law". I think that if you follow the arms code and use common sense then you should be fine.

Savage1, I'm one of those. And I will keep repeating it.

The police merely enforce the law, they do not make it. Most of the time, there is no problem. You would however be naive in the extreme to think that police forces around the world do not use some of their powers for their own benefit or for other motives.

I like to keep an open mind. For the most part, I think the arms code is perfectly fine. There are some small parts that I think are just plain stupid, out-dated or illogical - and should be changed.

As we have seen quite clearly in this and other discussions, the issue is further compounded by varying interpretations of the same arms code document by different AOs.

Bottom line is that I would rather be an informed citizen, well aware of my rights, and not rely on the police or someone else to tell me what my rights are...

Originally Posted by Savage1

Yes but if people keep pushing their luck and ignoring the Arms Code, eg not storing bolt seperatly because they're to lazy, the Police may decide that they're not "fit and proper" and revoke your licence under sec 27 of the Arms Act. Then you wouldn't even be able to possess an air rifle.

If you follow the Arms Code then they could never argue that you aren't "fit and proper", if you ignore it because it isn't law then you may be giving them grounds to revoke your licence. Some small minor things just aren't worth the hassle.

You dont need anything bar being 18+ for an air rifle, so unless a judge specifically says no the police cant stop you owning one....or point me where it says otherwise please.

Originally Posted by ebf

Savage1, I'm one of those. And I will keep repeating it.

The police merely enforce the law, they do not make it. Most of the time, there is no problem. You would however be naive in the extreme to think that police forces around the world do not use some of their powers for their own benefit or for other motives.

I like to keep an open mind. For the most part, I think the arms code is perfectly fine. There are some small parts that I think are just plain stupid, out-dated or illogical - and should be changed.

As we have seen quite clearly in this and other discussions, the issue is further compounded by varying interpretations of the same arms code document by different AOs.

Bottom line is that I would rather be an informed citizen, well aware of my rights, and not rely on the police or someone else to tell me what my rights are...

What would Polices "own benefit" be? Enforcing the law and protecting the citizens I would presume, I'm unaware of anything else they would have to gain, they aren't a business, there are no profits.

The Polices job is not only to enforce the Arms Act etc but they are also the licencing agency who decides whether or not a person is fit and proper enough to hold a licence, so what they say goes, it is written in the Arms Act.

Argueing that you don't have to do what is recommended in the Arms Code as it isn't law with the AO probably wouldn't be in your best interest.

I pretty much agree with your post though.

Tussock I agree on the case law issue - and being a test case is not my idea of a family picnic either.

The theme I think we're all agreed on is that there does appear to be a measure of variance in interpretation by some FAL holders, as well as AO's.

The fact that we're talking - and maintaining this as a dialogue (multilogue?), as opposed to argument means I have some optimism at the outcome.

Other threaders are correct also in bringing us back to the simple A-cat focus. The broader discussions allow us to have informed opinions, and give us an understanding of the other dynamics that cause those variances in interpretation, but we all appear to be agreed on the key principle of safety.
Si