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.
I agree from the DUI perspective. But in the ruling the judge referenced his "history". So I had a good google and could find no previous convictions or issues. That leads me to believe that the ruling was based in including the firearms offences which had been dismissed.
If they were dismissed, were they actually offences for which conviction might have been the outcome?
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!!
Bookmarks