Thread: Should this dropkick get his FAL back?

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.

The opening post asked for our OPINIONS on if we thought he should get his licence back.

In my line of work and my opinion..No he should not

Originally Posted by Savage1

Section 49A of the Arms Act 1983

Cheers. That section says possession is an offence, but nothing about providing it them to use under supervision being an offense - so I guess in Pengy's theoretical situation above the supervisor would be ok and the resonsibility lies with the revoked licence person.

S.22 lists supervision by a licence holder as a good defence for unlawful possession charges but only specifically mentions S.20 and S.21, do you know if it has been tested in court whether that applies to S.49A charges as well? Obviously better to avoid the situation, but it could be an interesting argument.

I know a guy who chose to surrender his licence in the past (because he thought it would get revoked due to criminal charges, though he's straightened his life out now). In that situation I guess he could still use a firearm under supervision now because he did surrender it instead of waiting for it to be revoked?

Originally Posted by GravelBen

Reference?

Arms Act 1983

27 Revocation and surrender of firearms licence

(1)

Where, in the opinion of a commissioned officer of Police,—

(b)
access to any firearm or airgun in the possession of the person to whom a firearms licence has been issued is reasonably likely to be obtained by any person—

(iii)
whose firearms licence has been revoked on the ground that he is not a fit and proper person to be in possession of a firearm or airgun;

the commissioned officer of Police may, by notice in writing under his hand, revoke the firearms licence, and the person to whom that firearms licence has been issued shall upon demand surrender the licence to a member of the Police.

Looks like a licence holder may lose their FA licence if they grant access to a person who has had their FA licence revoked.

I reckon the cops have a duty of care to keep these blokes away from firearms. Some people just aren't the right sort of personality. Going to wind up killing someone the way these blokes are going.

you'd have to agree in light of the gravity of both incidents coupled with Hores apparent cavalier attitude to use of firearms under his control ,the chances of this appeal succeeding are as much as a draughthorse winning a melbourne cup.
from a purely practical point of view MBIE could have a fieldday on Hore from a H&S perspective too.
so gents i vote no

No

Another no here, the court of popular opinion seems to favour no so it will be interesting to see what the actual outcome is.

Ah come on guys, he is an ex All Black

Originally Posted by kotuku

you'd have to agree in light of the gravity of both incidents coupled with Hores apparent cavalier attitude to use of firearms under his control ,the chances of this appeal succeeding are as much as a draughthorse winning a melbourne cup.

This. He doesn't meet the good character test. Put it this way if you were out hunting and you knew he was within 100 meters of you or your mate would you feel safe? I sure as shit wouldn't. On two occasions he has shown he doesn't have the judgement that you should have to use a firearm, not once, twice. Putting it another way, if it was a motor vehicle license and it was drunk driving would you want him to be allowed to drive again?

He shouldn't be allowed even near an air rifle again as far as I'm concerned.

If they do give it back it dose open up a precedent for others who really should not have access to firearms.
So really NO
NO!!!

Originally Posted by 7mmwsm

If he was drink driving or dangerous driving he would get his licence back after a stand down period. Very few people get banned for life from driving, even after horrendous re offending.
So based on that, I would say he should have the right to reapply for his licence after a period of disqualification.

Probably not what we would want to see but have to agree with you.

Different rules for driving, hell we are happy to kill 100s each year in car accidents, sure as hell we couldn't kill that number with firearms! Therefore firearms are far more dangerous and no he shouldn't get his licence back! Now figure that bloody logic!, he can happily have a driver licence along with all the other nutters!

Originally Posted by Maca49

Different rules for driving, hell we are happy to kill 100s each year in car accidents, sure as hell we couldn't kill that number with firearms! Therefore firearms are far more dangerous and no he shouldn't get his licence back! Now figure that bloody logic!, he can happily have a driver licence along with all the other nutters!

Id agree with macca-dumbfounded as i am with the logic behind it(what fucking logic)you get clowns appear before the courts up to six times or more DUI before a judge says enough is enough and confiscates DL for a proper time.wow some judges even employ commonsense and say well lad if you cant learn in society have some time behind bars to think about what a fucktard you really are!
What is not highlighted is that operating 2tons of metal at any speed whilst being off ya cottonpicking trolleyis just as fucking deadly as operating a device throwing a small lead or steel pellet or slug.
nup the second is ENTIRELY UNACCEPTABLE cause society says so and should merit maximum punishment and get rid of all guns etc etc etc
But well there may be reasons why that poor chap drove pissed for the sixth time in a fucking row so judge gets fed a load of garbage by a well meaning lawyer!
BOTH ARE WRONG -ABUSE IT AND YA FUCKING LOSE IT -FINITO
thats my wee daily rant over

Most of us can live life without a firearm (it is a luxury many of our Aussie mates don't have). The danger to the public vastly outweighs this guys need to be entertained. I'm aware of the irony btw, that hippies would say that to all of us but our attitudes to safety are the only thing that justifies the trust placed in us.