Thread: Wtf

Unlawful/unlicenced possession of ammunition in a private place is also an offence that's not listed there.

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 This was for the specific purpose of creating a substantial offence for firearm licence holders whose licence had been revoked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.

Originally Posted by Maca49

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!

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?

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?

Originally Posted by Sidney

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?

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?

Fuck I counted 10 question marks and you gonna be a lawyer

Originally Posted by Dundee

Fuck I counted 10 question marks and you gonna be a lawyer

Bullshit you can't count to ten Dundee, a cow only has four teets

I'd hate to be accused of having all the answers..

Originally Posted by Sidney

Is that sort of emotional decision making how we should run a justice system?

Actually I would say yes. However we run more of a legal system than a justice system here.

It was a rhetorical question, have a stab at how inequitable that would become..... and how quickly we would descend into anarchy

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.

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...?

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.

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...