Thread: Wtf

Originally Posted by gadgetman

Most of that is an opinion, much like the military pattern pistol grip saga.

True, I am not aware of this being tested in court. Maybe the Police should make this individual the test case?

Originally Posted by gadgetman

If the above could be applied then no unlicensed person would be allowed to use a firearm even under supervision.

Not true.

Arms Act 1983
Section 22-Exemptions
(2) It is a good defence to a prosecution for an offence against section 20 or section 21 if the defendant proves,—

(a) in the case of a prosecution relating to the possession of a firearm (not being a pistol or a restricted weapon) by any person,—

(i) that the firearm was in the possession of that person for use under the immediate supervision of the holder of a firearms licence; and

(ii) that at all times while that person was in possession of the firearm, that person was under the immediate supervision of the holder of a firearms licence; or

You will note that this exemption does not apply to Section 49A.

Section 49A- Unlawful possession of firearm or airgun after revocation of firearms licence

Every person commits an offence and is liable on conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 1 year or to a fine not exceeding $4,000 or to both who, being a person whose firearms licence has been revoked, is in possession of a firearm or airgun at a time when that person is not the holder of a firearms licence, and is not a person authorised, expressly or by implication, by or pursuant to this Act, to be in possession of that firearm or airgun.