Thread: Should this dropkick get his FAL back?

Originally Posted by Pengy

Doesn't really matter unfortunately, as even if he doesn't get his FAL back, there will always be a so called `mate` willing to take him out under supervision

Once your FAL has been taken off you, I'm pretty sure you aren't allowed to handle firearms even under supervision

Interesting point in question. Anyone know the answer for certain
No Bush lawyer answers required

Tommy is correct.

He broke a lot of the rules FAL should be revoked no question at all.

[QUOTE=10

Begs the following question
If you did not know that someone had lost their FAL, and took them out under supervision, is ignorance a defence or are you in the brown stuff?
Point being that unless it is a high profile person like in this case, it is unlikely to be public knowledge.

Originally Posted by 10-Ring

Tommy is correct.

Reference?

The cops gave, or had to give, that guy Jenner from Hamilton his licence back and had to pay $10 000 costs.

And he pleaded guilty selling guns to a gang member.

Why shouldn't someone who only lent one gun to a mate not get his back? It's up to the judge to decide. Not internet experts on here.
That's why we have judges to decide, not angry keyboard commandos.

You'll be quoted again when people complain about judge's decisions and how wrong they are

Originally Posted by systolic

The cops gave, or had to give, that guy Jenner from Hamilton his licence back and had to pay $10 000 costs.

And he pleaded guilty selling guns to a gang member.

Why shouldn't someone who only lent one gun to a mate not get his back? It's up to the judge to decide. Not internet experts on here.
That's why we have judges to decide, not angry keyboard commandos.

Me thinks that many judges would do good to heed some direction from "keyboard commando's", as at the end of the day it is us that get restricted by the action of the "others", more than the "others."

The sentence for firearms offences should be taken out of the courts hands, if found guilty the sentence should be mandatory not up to some pussy judge there are to many judges handing out soft sentences
that have no deterrent effect on the offenders like the twat we are talking about.

I like twats?

[QUOTE=Pengy;537863][QUOTE=10

Begs the following question
If you did not know that someone had lost their FAL, and took them out under supervision, is ignorance a defence or are you in the brown stuff?
Point being that unless it is a high profile person like in this case, it is unlikely to be public knowledge.[/QUOTE]
Have you been taking silly question hormones again Pengy?

In a former life I was in the process of having my FAL revoked and there was able accompanying note spelling out that once revoked, I would not be able to handle firearms at all....
Thankfully the judge had some common sense and the police could not proceed with it...

Originally Posted by systolic

The cops gave, or had to give, that guy Jenner from Hamilton his licence back and had to pay $10 000 costs.

And he pleaded guilty selling guns to a gang member.

Why shouldn't someone who only lent one gun to a mate not get his back? It's up to the judge to decide. Not internet experts on here.
That's why we have judges to decide, not angry keyboard commandos.

Police did themselves no favours in their handling of Dale's case.

Originally Posted by GravelBen

Reference?

Section 49A of the Arms Act 1983