Thread: Free E's ..... we'll almost

Originally Posted by dogmatix

Unfortunately, some ranges will be enforcing the rule from 11 June onwards. I.e. won't allow you to let your mates shoot your E-Cat MSSA under your supervision.
Mind you, those ranges are anti semis anyway, so not a far extension of that old fart attitude.

The reasoning is quite convoluted but it is because there are three seperate sections in law which deal with supplying an MSSA

CIV-2012-409-000866 [2013] NZHC 1813

JUDGMENT OF PANCKHURST J

[68] Faced with the present wording of s 22(2)(a) Ms Coleman conceded that the immediate supervision defence is available in relation to the use of a MSSA, at least in the context of a prosecution against the unlicensed person under s 20. Clearly that concession was appropriate.

[69] However, counsel drew attention to two other offence sections under which charges could be laid. Section 44(1) defines the offence of supplying a MSSA (or a pistol or a restricted weapon) to anyone other than a person who is authorised to receive it by virtue of a permit to import, or a permit to procure. Interestingly, s 44(3) provides a defence where the supply was by a pistol licence holder at a recognised pistol shooting club range and the supplier provided immediate supervision over the pistol while it is in the possession of the other person i.e. the same defence as was contained in the 2005 Bill in relation to possession of a pistol contrary to s 20 of the Act.

[70] Supply is a word of broad meaning. It is apt to cover relinquishing possession of a MSSA even temporarily for the purpose of firearm instruction by the supplier. Potentially, therefore, even in an immediate supervision context the supplier of a MSSA could be charged under s 44, albeit the person receiving instruction may well have a defence under s 22(2)(a).


[71] In addition, s 50(1) creates the offence of unlawful possession of a MSSA by a person not authorised or permitted to do so, for example because they do not hold an E endorsement and a permit to procure. Again, the same immediate supervision defence is available but only in relation to a pistol: see s 50(5). Hence, there is potential for someone placed in possession of a MSSA, but under immediate supervision, to be charged under this section, instead of under s 20 where an immediate supervision defence would be available.
[72] In short, ss 20(1) on the one hand, and 44(1) and 50(1) on the other are in conflict with reference to the availability of an immediate supervision defence in relation to the possession, and supply, of a MSSA. The existence of this conflict further supports the contention that s 22(2)(a) contains a drafting error which, regrettably, was not rectified as proposed in the 2005 Bill.


[73] Mr Lincoln sought a declaration confirming that, were he to supply a MSSA to another for firearm instruction and provide immediate supervision of that person, he would not commit an offence. The value of a declaration confirming that particular conduct is not criminal is well recognised:26
Where ... a party brings proceedings before the Courts relating to matters involving statutory construction ... because he wants to avoid violating the law and in order to ascertain and observe the law, the Court should surely be much more sympathetic towards granting declaratory relief if convenient.
In this instance, however, the reverse is the case. For the reasons given the applicant may be prosecuted under s 44(1) were he to supply a MSSA to someone for the purpose of safety instruction under his supervision.
[74] For these reasons, and in the exercise of my discretion, I decline to grant relief.