Thread: Wtf

Edit: I can't fix my autocorrect fails on the iPhone, apologies. Do your best to understand my gibberish


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Tx Dougie, seems bit crazy huh ?

I still struggle to get my head around the concept of handing a firearm to someone that does not have a license... If this happens on a designated range, under the supervision of a RO, all good, but out in the bush it just seems like an accident waiting to happen.

Of course most of these deaths are caused by folks who already have a license, so probably won't change anything changing that part of the law. But I would really like to see some provision preventing a person from handling a firearm (at least for a good wee while).

Just my 5c, I'm sure others will disagree

Acknowledging that I am a barbaric SOB who is out of place in modern society and who has extreme views on such matters, I still can't help but think that the simple application of a no lesser retaliation policy would have a far greater impact.

Originally Posted by ebf

Tx Dougie, seems bit crazy huh ?

I still struggle to get my head around the concept of handing a firearm to someone that does not have a license... If this happens on a designated range, under the supervision of a RO, all good, but out in the bush it just seems like an accident waiting to happen.

Of course most of these deaths are caused by folks who already have a license, so probably won't change anything changing that part of the law. But I would really like to see some provision preventing a person from handling a firearm (at least for a good wee while).

Just my 5c, I'm sure others will disagree

Yep I totally agree but am a realist and can see this not happening ever in NZ.

I'm the same with you on the supervision thing, and as you well know I pick and choose my hunting buddies even when they DO have a licence!

I've had a few people ask me to take their kids out. To be honest, nothing scared me more. I can take responsibility for my own shots and wounded animals, but not other's!

I really don't like handing the rifle over to my other half either, even though it makes him pissy.

It looks like a lump of plastic and metal but the reality is, that thing is a whole lot of responsibility.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Ah, Rushy - could you clarify what you mean by a no lesser retaliation policy?

Either I've missed something or I'm a bit thick cos I don't understand what you mean by that

Originally Posted by Rushy

Acknowledging that I am a barbaric SOB who is out of place in modern society and who has extreme views on such matters, I still can't help but think that the simple application of a no lesser retaliation policy would have a far greater impact.

Originally Posted by 308

Ah, Rushy - could you clarify what you mean by a no lesser retaliation policy?

Either I've missed something or I'm a bit thick cos I don't understand what you mean by that

Certainly 308 but before I do I would hasten to add that I do not wish to cause nor engage in a negative debate on this forum that I enjoy so much so I will do so in the clear understanding that I will not comment further beyond explaining my view to you. I strongly believe in the concept of an eye for an eye.

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

Life long parole conditions. However again, this won't happen in this situation with Dummer. Life parole is usually reserved for someone who could be served with a life sentence and in extreme circumstances like a serial killer or serial "manslaughterererer" that involved weapons I guess.

Anyway, just wanted to let you know that I was wrong, there is a way other than bail conditions @ebf



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Drummer. I don't know the dude but have decided he would not be welcome in the same place as me if he had his hands on a firearm or maybe even a rock. The facts are that; He was an executive in the nzda and no doubt pounded home gun safety/ target idendification and whatever as they do. A case of "Do as I say, not as I do?".
He did not shoot the victim as a result of a rebounding bullet or an accidental discharge,
He fired at a target he had not positively identified and that was a deliberate act.
He seems to shown remorse when it would undoudtedly help his case before the Court and his arrogance now is unexcusable, especially by asking the mother of his victim if he had a hunting permit. If he had not would that have made him a legitamite target? Holy Shit, you get a permit from DOC for Aorangis, Tararuas, Rimutukas and share those areas with heaps of others there on the same bloody day.
The question was asked if the NZDA would welcome him back to the fold but so far I can't find a reply anywhere. It would be nice to hear from them and Drummer himself if he has big enough balls to come on the forum and defend himself.

Thanks Rushy - I completely understand your desire to stay positive on the forum

Originally Posted by Rushy

Certainly 308 but before I do I would hasten to add that I do not wish to cause nor engage in a negative debate on this forum that I enjoy so much so I will do so in the clear understanding that I will not comment further beyond explaining my view to you. I strongly believe in the concept of an eye for an eye.

Having your FA license revoked is actually completely different to not having it in the first place

Offences

The following summarises offences under the Arms Act 1983 and the Arms Amendment Act 1992.

dealing in firearms unless a licensed Dealer
selling firearms for a Dealer unless a firearms licenceholder
as a Dealer failing to keep a prescribed transaction register
importing firearms without a Permit to Import
being in possession of a firearm unless licensed
being in possession of an airgun while under the age of 18 years (unless licensed)
failing to produce firearms licence when required by Police
failing to surrender firearms and airguns if licence revoked
failing to advise Police of a change of address
carrying a Pistol or Restricted Weapon beyond the dwellinghouse without specific written authority from Police
failing to give 4 days notice of an intention to remove a Pistol, MSSA or Restricted Weapon from N.Z.
failing to report the destruction, theft, or loss, of a firearm
not supplying name, address, and DOB on demand by Police
not surrendering any airgun or antique firearm when required by Police
altering a firearms licence
using another persons firearms licence
lending a firearms licence for another to use
supplying a firearm or ammunition to an unlicensed person
supplying a firearm or ammunition by mail order unless having specific written approval from Police
supplying an airgun to a person under 18 years of age (unless that person licensed)
supplying a Pistol, Restricted Weapon, or MSSA to a person who does not hold a ‘permit to procure’ that firearm
being in possession of a firearm or imitation firearm except for a lawful, proper and sufficient purpose
being in charge of a firearm or airgun while under the influence of drink or drug
discharging a firearm in or near a dwellinghouse or public place so as to annoy, endanger, or frighten any person.
discharging or carrying a [bolt, flare, spear, net, tranquilizer gun etc.] except for a lawful and proper purpose
being in possession of firearm, antique firearm, or airgun after revocation of licence
unlawful possession of a Pistol, Restricted Weapon, or Military Style Semi Automatic firearm
unlawful carriage or possession of a firearm, airgun, or ammunition in a public place
presenting a firearm, airgun or an object resembling a firearm at another person unless for a lawful purpose
careless use of a firearm or airgun
use or attempted use of a firearm, airgun, imitation firearm or ammunition to resist arrest or commit an offence
carrying a firearm, airgun, imitation firearm, or ammunition with criminal intent
obstructing a member of Police
failing to report injuries caused by firearms
possession of an unsafe firearm (after notice given)

From COLFOs website.

Section 49a of the Arms Act

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.

Section 49A: inserted, on 1 November 1992, by section 26 of the Arms Amendment Act 1992 (1992 No 95).

Section 49A: amended, on 1 July 2013, by section 413 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 (2011 No 81).

Originally Posted by Rushy

Certainly 308 but before I do I would hasten to add that I do not wish to cause nor engage in a negative debate on this forum that I enjoy so much so I will do so in the clear understanding that I will not comment further beyond explaining my view to you. I strongly believe in the concept of an eye for an eye.

The prob with your logic in these type of cases... is that you cannot apply that intentionally, where the original event was unintentional. It would not be the same thing.

Agree Sidney, except where a person in control of a car or for that matter firearm, in an unfit state, alcohol, drug impaired or using the item in a dangerous manner etc, then the full force of the law should apply and this let em go lightly bullshit should stop. The grieving and harm done to the third party filters a long way and is not repairable and all because some one was intentionally outside of the law in what they were doing!

Ah yep sweet cheers for the list of offences.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

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.