Thread: Wtf

Originally Posted by ebf

Well, since we've managed to turn what started as an emotional and moral debate into a legal one, here's a legal question.

If a person has had a FAL revoked, are they still able to handle a firearm under the close supervision of a FAL holder ?

Does the pope wear a funny hat?

Originally Posted by ebf

Well, since we've managed to turn what started as an emotional and moral debate into a legal one, here's a legal question.

If a person has had a FAL revoked, are they still able to handle a firearm under the close supervision of a FAL holder ?

No they are not.

Originally Posted by Dougie

Ah, I've just thought of a way for a person not to have possession or use of a firearm!

If your FAL is revoked you can no longer use or possess a firearm under any circumstances.

From the Police Arms Manual
Section 49A of the Arms Act 1983 “Unlawful possession of a firearm or airgun after revocation of Firearms Licence” with a penalty of 1 year’s imprisonment or a fine
of $4000 or both was created in 1992. This was for the specific purpose of creating a substantial offence for firearm licence holders whose licence had been revoked
either for no longer being fit and proper or for failing to respond to their call-in notice.

This offence, unlike other offences or provisions of the Arms Act 1983, does not specifically allow a defence of being under the immediate supervision of a licence holder. It does provide for an authorisation expressly or by implication, by or pursuant to this Act, to be in possession of a firearm. Whether or not this allows by implication the defence of immediate supervision is a matter of opinion at this stage, as it has not yet been tested in Court.

The intent of the offence was to ensure that firearms were not possessed by revoked persons and would therefore be unable to continue to lawfully use them.

To suggest that the immediate supervision defence was available makes a mockery of the law and if a prosecution under Section 49A was properly presented then it
should succeed.

In the event, prima facie, an offence has been committed IF A REVOKED PERSON IS IN POSSESSION. The burden of proof is on the defendant to prove that their
possession was lawful if the defence of immediate supervision is used.

It would appear based on others comments that this individual has been hunting since the incident, if this is the case, he has committed an offence if he used a firearm at any time.

We don't need more laws. We need better enforcement of existing laws and appropriate punishments by the courts.

Originally Posted by Koshogi

If your FAL is revoked you can no longer use or possess a firearm under any circumstances.

From the Police Arms Manual
Section 49A of the Arms Act 1983 “Unlawful possession of a firearm or airgun after revocation of Firearms Licence” with a penalty of 1 year’s imprisonment or a fine
of $4000 or both was created in 1992. This was for the specific purpose of creating a substantial offence for firearm licence holders whose licence had been revoked
either for no longer being fit and proper or for failing to respond to their call-in notice.

This offence, unlike other offences or provisions of the Arms Act 1983, does not specifically allow a defence of being under the immediate supervision of a licence holder. It does provide for an authorisation expressly or by implication, by or pursuant to this Act, to be in possession of a firearm. Whether or not this allows by implication the defence of immediate supervision is a matter of opinion at this stage, as it has not yet been tested in Court.

The intent of the offence was to ensure that firearms were not possessed by revoked persons and would therefore be unable to continue to lawfully use them.

To suggest that the immediate supervision defence was available makes a mockery of the law and if a prosecution under Section 49A was properly presented then it
should succeed.

In the event, prima facie, an offence has been committed IF A REVOKED PERSON IS IN POSSESSION. The burden of proof is on the defendant to prove that their
possession was lawful if the defence of immediate supervision is used.

It would appear based on others comments that this individual has been hunting since the incident, if this is the case, he has committed an offence if he used a firearm at any time.

We don't need more laws. We need better enforcement of existing laws and appropriate punishments by the courts.

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.

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.

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?

It even states that.

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.

Thanks, that is clearer.

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?

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.
He got done.

Well that quite clear thankyou Sydney.

I thought some of the posts were starting to stray a little away from what is considered good manners.

Are there any provisions in the law for someone to be banned from using firearms for a period of time or indefinitely ?

this is the part .... sure it could be emotional biais and only the reporters spin on things... but it makes me see red all the same.


In another sign that Dummer lacked remorse for the shooting, he questioned Cyndy McDonald about whether her son had a permit to be hunting in Aorangi at the time of his death.

She referred him to a police report, saying it confirmed her son had a permit.

Dummer can still pick up a bow and arrow if he still wants to hunt shit.

He's obviously a couch potato, being a smoker and whatnot. That's why he wants a gun, so much easier work.

Didn't he keep insisting, he 'saw the shoulder of a deer'? When it was actually a blaze beanie 16 meters away? Fuck he probably has glaucoma from all that tobacco.

Originally Posted by tararua

He's obviously a couch potato, being a smoker and whatnot. That's why he wants a gun, so much easier work.

Didn't he keep insisting, he 'saw the shoulder of a deer'? When it was actually a blaze beanie 16 meters away? Fuck he probably has glaucoma from all that tobacco.

So smoking was the cause of everything?

Seriously ?? He's obviously a couch potato, being a smoker and whatnot.

That is the most STUPID thing I have ever heard.

Settle down you guys. Your victim has escaped your clutches for the time being. Put away your pointy hats and blazing brands.

Just remember in a few days time you can dig him up and do it all over again.

Sydney has a point, the only prob I have is that, and im not just saying this guy, the past history of a person can be hidden or not told to the people making the decision to find guilty or not. Id be pissed if due process had occurred and I couldnt get on with what I legally allowed because of emotion. If you have previous convictions etc they should be laid on the table, a bad egg is usually a bad egg, not a born again virgin. Of course in the case of a raped woman the tables are turned with as much shit as possible about her, not the accused, being laid bare. Its a cocked up heap of shit!

Originally Posted by Maca49

Sydney has a point, the only prob I have is that, and im not just saying this guy, the past history of a person can be hidden or not told to the people making the decision to find guilty or not. Id be pissed if due process had occurred and I couldnt get on with what I legally allowed because of emotion. If you have previous convictions etc they should be laid on the table, a bad egg is usually a bad egg, not a born again virgin. Of course in the case of a raped woman the tables are turned with as much shit as possible about her, not the accused, being laid bare. Its a cocked up heap of shit!

The difference between a legal system and a justice system. It does have a valid foundation though. Just because someone did it last time doesn't mean they did it this time. It must be proven that in the present situation they did it. Their history is meant to be taken into consideration for any punishment if found guilty of the latest transgression.

Trouble with jurisprudence is it does, with bad decision on top of bad decision, seem to eventuate in

a cocked up heap of shit!

Originally Posted by gadgetman

The difference between a legal system and a justice system. It does have a valid foundation though. Just because someone did it last time doesn't mean they did it this time. It must be proven that in the present situation they did it. Their history is meant to be taken into consideration for any punishment if found guilty of the latest transgression.

Trouble with jurisprudence is it does, with bad decision on top of bad decision, seem to eventuate in

You don't know many arseholes GM or leopards