Unlawful/unlicenced possession of ammunition in a private place is also an offence that's not listed there.
Printable View
Unlawful/unlicenced possession of ammunition in a private place is also an offence that's not listed there.
Most of that is an opinion, much like the military pattern pistol grip saga. It would more be a matter of interpretation of possession I would have thought. If the above could be applied then no unlicensed person would be allowed to use a firearm even under supervision.Quote:
Originally Posted by Koshogi
True, I am not aware of this being tested in court. Maybe the Police should make this individual the test case?Quote:
Originally Posted by gadgetman
Not true.Quote:
Originally Posted by gadgetman
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a term not exceeding 1 year or to a fine not exceeding $4,000 or to both who, being a person whose firearms licence has been revoked, is in possession of a firearm or airgun at a time when that person is not the holder of a firearms licence, and is not a person authorised, expressly or by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.
It even states that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Koshogi
Thanks, that is clearer.Quote:
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.
There was one a year or so go with a guy from the wairarapa clay target shooting at the club under supervision after losing his license.Quote:
Originally Posted by Koshogi
He got done.
What does the "full force of the law" mean? And what would its application actually do for the grieving and harmed, given that the situation is not repairable?Quote:
Originally Posted by Maca49
Do you think that slating some sort of vengeance requirement, is a legitimate role for the law to play? Do we now have to sentence people according to how the victims feels appropriate? Is that sort of emotional decision making how we should run a justice system?
I can certainly understand how a person gets to be "intentionally outside of the law" when it comes to alcohol drugs and driving, but it seems to be a little less clear in the case of careless driving perhaps? At what point does misidentification of a target become "acting intentionally outside the law"?
Negligence and intention have the same level of culpabilty? Recklessness is worse or better than negligence? Now should just sentence on outcome perhaps?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sidney
Fuck I counted 10 question marks and you gonna be a lawyer:D
Bullshit you can't count to ten Dundee, a cow only has four teetsQuote:
Originally Posted by Dundee
I'd hate to be accused of having all the answers.. :)
Actually I would say yes. However we run more of a legal system than a justice system here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sidney
It was a rhetorical question, have a stab at how inequitable that would become..... and how quickly we would descend into anarchy
We are. With the current lack of action at the bottom end, and over use of the wet bus tickets, the crims are lulled into a sense that nothing much will really happen. If you look at countries where the penalties are harsher for more minor crimes they tend to have less of the major crimes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sidney
I have a feeling that you don't really understand what anarchy is. How do you explain a 15 year low in serious crime and overfull prisons in terms of your wet bus ticket theory...?
Changes in reporting and definitions? I'm not sure. There was a social experiment, implemented many years ago, where more emphasis was placed on lighter sentencing and other measures in order to correct behaviours with earlier offences in order to avoid people becoming career criminals. With this how do YOU explain why the prisons are fuller? To start with they think, "Wow, I'm treated pretty good. I's not so bad, ...", and they simply continue.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sidney
I know it is not a simple problem to solve. There are other factors:
Lack of corporal punishment in schools, for many a quick whack to put them in line worked. Some it didn't. The current situation where they don't want to be there and don't care if they are forced not to be doesn't really worry them.
Economic influences/unemployment. Sometimes people just have to survive, it has been happening for thousands of years now.
Drugs, often started as a release from social/economic issues. Being illegal they are driven underground which makes them expensive and crime is often the only means they can find to pay for it.
Social changes. It is instilled in the young that they have the right to be respected, to a certain extent yes. But in large true respect is something earned.
It is not easy, and I'm not sure you truly know the difference between a legal system and a justice system.
perhaps you can tell me what justice is then...
It was a rhetorical question.
However, in my view, justice is skewed more towards punishments biased towards the impact of the crimes. This takes into account to a greater extent the effects on the victims, including the families and societies around them. Currently we have more what I call a legal system where the 'rules' are skewed more towards the rights of the perpetrators and their circumstances and a system of rules and processes.
It is not a black and white thing but a large grey scale. It is a matter of where the current position is on that scale.
Look at the likes of Malaysia where tolerances at the lower end of the crime spectrum are dealt with quite severely providing disincentives to the criminal path. More serious crimes are generally at a much lower rate than more lenient systems.
I'll tell you what justice isn't Sidney....the 10 years jail served of a life sentence by the 16 year old low life who shot my father in the back of the head, killing him. It affected my whole life, but it seems that shouldn't matter. Instead we should think of the perpetrator's well being and rights above those of the victim and family. I wish I had been able to get up in court and express how this mongrel's actions had affected my family's lives.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sidney
"Do we now have to sentence people according to how the victims feels appropriate? Is that sort of emotional decision making how we should run a justice system?"
Why not? Lawyers constantly appeal to the emotions of judges and juries. How many times do we have to hear of lawyers trying to mitigate the perpetrator's crime by stating 'the offender had an unfortunate upbringing, was socially and economically deprived, used alcohol/illicit substances etc. etc. ad nauseam. I believe the courts really are doing a disservice to the victim, family and society if not taking into account how it affects them when sentencing the perpetrator.
I am so sick and tired of bleeding hearts sticking up for these scum. Do the crime, do the time. No second chance as far as I am concerned. I am a big proponent of 'an eye for an eye', but I am a law abiding citizen that expects the courts to punish the offender accordingly. Unfortunately I now have little faith in the legal system as I believe it is out of touch with community expectations. The pendulum has now swung too far towards upholding the rights? of perpetrators as against society as a whole.
Am I emotional/bitter? Too right I am.
Pete
Well said, and all power to your right arm Pete.
When this social experiment was set up what criteria to measure success or failure was put in place? What threshold was put in place to say that it was a failure and end the experiment? At either end of the grey scale we will have anarchy.
Eye for an eye with no guilty intent?
I can understand 'eye for an eye' but only when there is a guilty intent and deliberate action.
Imagine you teenage kid going to jail for life because they took a corner too fast and killed another person, would the punishment fit?
The victim in this matter, his parents said on TV something along the lines of 'He should go away for a long time, I want his family to know what it's like to lose someone'. That to me is just vindictive and victimises the offenders family to make them feel a little better.
There's a big difference between people with guilty intent and people who've made and unintentional mistake, and people that're reckless.
I agree with most of Sidney's posts in this topic.
Pete...Quote:
Originally Posted by ExPoh75
You are correct, sentencing isn't justice. You could say that sentencing is the execution of justice and it is a component of the system of justice.
I don't minimise the way your lives have been affected in any way. But how would the way that you feel, and the way that you are affected by the loss of your father, actually change if the kid had got 20 years or the rest of his life, or even been hung by his neck?
I am not sticking up for anybody, accountability is the issue, but justice is simply being held accountable. The sentence may be more or less equitable/fair in your opinion, but you are only considering it from your perspective. Being a judge requires balancing perspectives, the victims, societal and the offender... whether you understand that or not this place is a better place because of it.
There are plenty of other places in the world to live that don't balance those perspectives, but you and most of us would not want to live there.
What you are talking about is how that balance is prioritised or weighted. That is always up for debate, but in spite of your understanding there is significant legal opinion that considers that our justice system has become too weighted towards the victim, and this distorts the application of the law.
I am always interested in the "rights of the criminal/perpetrator" comment. People don't seem to connect that these are actually the same rights that apply to ordinary citizens, until guilt is established. To reduce the "rights of the perpetrator prior to conviction" is to also reduce the rights of everybody else. I'm certainly not comfortable with that, nor should anybody else be.
Doesn't the 'supervision' requirement mean that the person with a licence is supposed to be in a position to take control of the firearm at any time? One firearm in use per licence holder and so on. Obviously people don't always do it that way, but I think thats what the rules say.Quote:
Originally Posted by ebf
So if you're using one rifle and giving your unlicenced mate one to use as well, you aren't supervising them.
Yes it does, but that is not what happens in the real world. On a range, maybe. Out in the bush or the back paddock it is a very different story.Quote:
Originally Posted by GravelBen
For the real simple buggers can you explain how's it different in the back paddock?Quote:
Originally Posted by ebf
Never been two a range but imagine some RO are Rambo dudes dealing with multiple range only shooters?
On a range it is reasonably simple to maintain "direct supervision". You have range officers, known range procedures etc. Not saying it can't go pear shaped, but unlikely.
On the farm or in the bush, mates shoot with a lot less formal rules. Very easy for a guy without a license who wants to try shooting to be handed a firearm, and then to wander off (away from direct supervision) or in a hunting scenario to split up and hunt the next valley etc.
Does that make sense ?
Still how I do it with the other half (one rifle, me and him) and it still scares the shit outta me sometimes!! He says I'm a rifle hog...I say I'm preventing an accident.Quote:
Originally Posted by ebf
:D:D:D:thumbsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by Dougie
I love the softly, softly, gentle approach Dougie. I'm the same. I am there and within very quick reach.
Fair enough comment Sydney. I apologise if you think my comments were a direct attack on you personally, that was not my intention.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sidney
I was trying to give an example of where, in my opinion, the legal system let not only my family but also society down.
Anyway we seem to have drifted away from the main thrust of the original post so I'll leave it that.
No issues Pete.... I know and have seen....
Found this quote which is worth reflection...... the balance thing again.......
Mercy in the absence of justice leads to weakness. Justice in the absence of mercy leads to tyranny. St Augustine
“Forgiveness has nothing to do with absolving a criminal of his crime. It has everything to do with relieving oneself of the burden of being a victim--letting go of the pain and transforming oneself from victim to survivor.”Quote:
Originally Posted by Sidney
― C.R. Strahan
Yesssss I was trying to find this!Quote:
Originally Posted by Tahr
Not trying to diss the victims here, but what sentence would it take? I doubt, if they allow themselves to continue dwelling, that a life sentence or hanging or shooting or anything like that will make themselves feel better until they decide to feel better and move on.
We are much better as people to take a deep breath and be sad, but know that we can't control other people's bad actions and continue with our lives.
And trying to stay beyond the dirty P word here - now remember who I am and where I am coming from as well, I'm not the most clued up on this stuff but do have an interest and am coming from a genuine place - is prison and serving sentences not just about punishment, but also about the safety of others and the rehabilitation of the offender?
Like...trying to help them to 1) not be in the position again and 2) if they are there again, make a better decision?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tahr
A bit like that story about the two wolves fighting.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dougie
It is a very complex issue with no single answer. Some will straighten up quick sharp, others will not. There is more to it than just leaving the legislature, police and judicial system to deal with the problem. It is a society problem; it is our problem. Everyone is the victim and everyone needs to be part of the solution. It costs everyone in increased insurance costs or just accepting the inevitable losses.
Look at why so many are heading down this road. Find this out and fix the problems there and things will improve. This thread is really about the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff and deciding which side of the beach at the bottom to park. The majority of the problems stem from unemployment/financial stress, lack of father figures/role models in their lives and our tendency to not have such strong local communities. We need more people to put in an effort in their local communities and dare I say it better/new government approaches to economic development/welfare that will benefit the whole community.
And yes, I'm sorry, I was a bit of an internet troll stirring the pot earlier to bring out a few more views. :sick:
I see your point, Dougie, but as in all things human, it is not quite so simple...most people simply need a sense of justice to prevail...and it is the sense of justice that eleviates much of the pain and devastating loss...knowing that there is some justice in the whole ghastly abhorrant matter...as a democratic country, we have a perception and an expectation that justice and lawfulness will serve us and protect us...Quote:
Originally Posted by Dougie
The families are not the victims, the person lost is the victim; the family are the ones with holes in their hearts...which only TIME will ease...
Yes I agree EeeBees, if only it were that simple! Sigh.
Why aren't people just good to each other??!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Well we all have different ideals, aspirations, sense of self, and on and on and on...we, the human, are the most vicious of all animals...the atrocities that we will exact upon others has no bounds...thankfully, most of us never realise our capabilities...
Well, sometimes time never heals. Often because we are hooked into wishing for a better past. Peace is likely to elude us until we let that futile hope go, and begin to construct a more hopeful future ourselves.Quote:
Originally Posted by EeeBees
Yes, Tahr you are right, but it cannot happen overnight...
Sorry guys, I have to disagree with some of the well meant and noble statements in the last few posts. If only we lived in a perfect world.
I work as a psychiatric nurse in the public mental health system. I have a Masters Degree in Mental Health Nursing so feel somewhat qualified to comment, not only on a professional level, but also from personal experience which I alluded to in an earlier post..
I see daily the devastation and complete loss of worth that a member or members of families of victims suffer. It is not so cut and dried. Families of victims become victims themselves and often suffer horrendously. The mind is a complex organism and some people simply cannot cope with a life changing event in their lives. Unfortunately, making a decision to "feel better and move on" is not an option that some people, through no fault of their own, are able to undertake.
Time does ease pain, however the pain will always be there. Just depends on how well an individual can cope with it.
Most people need closure. Justice needs to be not only seen and heard, but also delivered commensurate to the crime. If the families of victims cannot comprehend the decision then their grief will only be compounded. It's a difficult area, one of which I don't have an answer to.
What I do believe though is that if a person wilfully and callously takes the life of another person then they should forfeit their life. An eye for an eye in my ideal just world.
Just saying....
... "commensurate" is the world you used... and apparently to the satisfaction of the person so affected... and you think that would be a perfect outcome?
What about the community of people around the offender who might not feel that the victims subjectivity about what is "commensurate" might not be equitable...?
Do you think that might create ongoing problems for society if we rely on a victims perception of what is commensurate, and expect the state to execute that? What about those innocent people around that offender...will you be working with them as a result of their perception of inequitable treatment as a result of relying on the subjectivity of victims?
Closure is not relevant to the length or type of sentence applied. It is relevant to the ability of the person to reconcile the situation for themselves and the support to do so. People will either achieve that or will never achieve that irrespective of the actual outcomes from the justice system..