Aussie wrote on Sep 5
th, 2017 at 6:39pm:
Alinta wrote on Sep 5
th, 2017 at 6:23pm:
I also note that the Article (written by a Lawyer...probably the 'mate' claimed by Mr Rort) refers to an administrative decision...not one of the Courts.
The facts on that 'paintball' situation are remarkably different to a mere cleaning of a weapon.....that bloke in the article was in fact manufacturing a weapon (licenced?) from bits taken off other weapons (licenced?)
One aspect of a licencing regime is surely to keep track of individual weapons. That will be corrupted if what this bloke did was not suppressed.
Still......if I was the author of that Article and had faith in what I was saying, I'd take that Registry decision under administrative review to get a binding Court interpretation.
Simon Munslow specialises in firearms laws, other lawyers take note of what he says, I have never met him.
The paintball operator was not manufacturing a paintball gun which arsie calls a weapon he was maintaining them.
Licensing does not keep track of firearms licensing involves people it's registration that keeps track of firearms, arise claims to be a lawyer yet misses these simple things pretty obvious he is just a taxi driver.
A registered firearm must be produced when police request it , if you cannot produce it you will be charged with fail to prevent the loss or theft of a firearm there is no indication the paintball gun that was used for parts had the receiver which has the serial number disposed of illegally.
The firearms registry is run by the police, what do you think a court will say when they look at section 8 of the 1996 firearms act which says firearm license holders can only use or possess a firearm with firearm dealers having authority to maintain (clean) and repair firearms?
Forum
Pages: 
