Thread: Man who shot teen dead in hunting accident 22 years ago loses firearms licence bid

Originally Posted by Paddy79

Drunk drivers who cause a fatal accident can get their licence back in due time. So should a person in a hunting/shooting accident be allowed to gain a licence back?

@Paddy79

Yes, if the shooter wasn't drinking. Except for former All Blacks of course.

Correction - that was a NON fatal accident.

Originally Posted by dannyb

I don't know what the new system is like or what it will change if anything.....purely stating the current system is a failure aimed at getting pretty much everyone through so long as they attend.
That is the impression I was left with when I sat mine. We were constantly reminded that these "course providers" would get us through and weren't here to fail us.

Thank you for your very honest posting dannyb. Your post is a much better start point for us to make a difference than a discussion debating societies and the courts comparative view of road accident versus shooting accidents . As I have said before I have never seen even one new firearms licence holder who is fully trained in firearms handling safety. I am sure that there are things that I would do better with some better training too.
I will open this up with two good sound habits for new licence holders:
1)Get in the habit of stopping at a perimeter line - could be a garden gate for example that you 'do not cross' without checking your firearm is safe and that means bolt out or gun broken, action pined back mag out empty before you proceed to a dwelling etc.
2) Count your ammo before you go hunting, shooting rabbits etc and be able account for every shot fired and every unused shell when you get back. If there is one missing where is it ??

@dannyb

Originally Posted by Cordite

@dannyb

??????
@Cordite

Oh good grief. After the shooting he has proven that he's not in control of his emotions, also there appear to be a number on here who know the guy and the circumstances around the various issue with him getting his license back. Guess what, they are saying no also, so I guess that's a no from me as well.

Originally Posted by dannyb

??????
@Cordite

@dannyb
Moa Hunter just forgot to put in the @ sign - I'm not losing the plot. (-:

Originally Posted by Gapped axe

Oh good grief. After the shooting he has proven that he's not in control of his emotions, also there appear to be a number on here who know the guy and the circumstances around the various issue with him getting his license back. Guess what, they are saying no also, so I guess that's a no from me as well.

That settles it then.

And then this happens...

https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/new-...home-detention

It states "Patterson was able to buy 10 firearms on Hayes' TradeMe account using his name and firearm licence. The guns included two AK-47 type weapons. " and then it adds "While Hayes held a gun licence it didn't permit him to own military style semi-automatic weapons either.". So much for accuracy. If he got them from trade me they would not have been MSSA and if they are now MSSA it is because they modified them afterwards....

Another question arises. If he enabled an unlicensed person to obtain firearms, is he still a fit and proper person to hold a license??????

Originally Posted by timattalon

Another question arises. If he enabled an unlicensed person to obtain firearms, is he still a fit and proper person to hold a license??????

Well obviously not. Which is probably why Hayes' licence was revoked in August last year, according to the NZ Herald.

People have lost their f'arms license for getting convicted of drink driving. The law surrounding when a license should be revoked is less than gray... its more a muddy colour.

One of this guys arguments was he wants to be able to teach his kids hunting. He still can, just not with a firearm unless they have a license as well. In fact, he can still hunt under the supervision of a flicno holder, so what is his real issue?

Interesting unrelated side note; They guy who wrote the original NZ Arms Code shot and killed a ranger in Woodhill Forest. No system is infallible.

Originally Posted by 6x45

People have lost their f'arms license for getting convicted of drink driving. The law surrounding when a license should be revoked is less than gray... its more a muddy colour.

One of this guys arguments was he wants to be able to teach his kids hunting. He still can, just not with a firearm unless they have a license as well. In fact, he can still hunt under the supervision of a flicno holder, so what is his real issue?

Interesting unrelated side note; They guy who wrote the original NZ Arms Code shot and killed a ranger in Woodhill Forest. No system is infallible.

Yes. Food for thought....

I believe persons with a police-cancelled license are forbiddcn from even using an air rifle under direct supervision. Someone pls correct me.

@Cordite hadn't heard that one ?

As far as I am aware, I don't think there is a provision for people not to use firearms if they have had their licence revoked. They fall in the same category as "unlicensed" so therefore can use one under direct supervision. Unless of course it is a court directed order (which is usually only while a person is on bail). I've run into at least one person that was prosecuted for careless use causing death as he was in possession of a firearm, still hunting in the bush with a firearms license holder.

The other thing that is apparent is that there is clearly no real benchmark for when a person should have their license revoked. It comes down to what Police member holding the rank of inspector, views the case and it is on a case by case basis. Again, being convicted of growing 30odd cannabis plants and having an MSSA within reach of your front door does not necessarily mean you will lose your license in district "x" (in fact in that case it didn't). Where as the same offence in another district that same person would definitely lose it rather quickly.

I know of one person who lost their license in one district in NZ and a couple of years later got it back again after moving to another district and putting the application before another person.

IMHO we have in NZ a pretty liberal if not casual attitude towards firearms and its related laws and that goes for those in charge of keeping us "safe" as well.

Originally Posted by 6x45

@Cordite hadn't heard that one ?

As far as I am aware, I don't think there is a provision for people not to use firearms if they have had their licence revoked. They fall in the same category as "unlicensed" so therefore can use one under direct supervision. Unless of course it is a court directed order (which is usually only while a person is on bail). I've run into at least one person that was prosecuted for careless use causing death as he was in possession of a firearm, still hunting in the bush with a firearms license holder.

Read the Arms Act and see what it says. Then you might have more of a clue than "As far as I'm aware".

Can you just spell it out for the whole class @systolic instead of doing what ever it is you just did? We can all learn a thing or too. Section 49A?

I think you are placing too much literal emphases on the words "unlawful" and "possession". I get your point, I was wrong to simplify something as complex as the law in an "off-hand" statement about "using firearms"

Thanks for pointing that out.

I'll refer to a case of Unlawful Possession where a hunter was caught hunting without a firearms license. This is not a direct parallel with your section 49A reference but it gives you an idea of how these things can be interpreted [in court as opposed to forums]. It was deemed in the end that the act of "hunting" is a tradition (from some old case law) and therefore not unlawful. Both the charge of "Unlawful Hunting" and therefore "Unlawful Possession" were thrown out. This is an over simplification on my part but I dont have the typing skills to go into detail and besides @systolic it would seem you can use a keyboard as well as the next forum warrior so you could likely find that bit of case law yourself by digging around.

Nothing in law, is ever straight forward. I apologise to you wholeheartedly for getting it so wrong.