Man charged for owning unregistered firearm, for the fist time ever
Source: https://www.stuff.co.nz/nz-news/350228576/man-charged-owning-unregistered-firearm-fist-time-ever
March 27, 2024, • 05:38pm
A man has been charged for owning a firearm that had not been registered in the new Firearms Registry.
The charge is the first of its kind, following the launch of Te Tari Pūreke/Firearms Safety Authority in June 2023.
By law, licenced firearm owners are required to enter their firearms into the registry within 30 days of purchase.
Police allege a 49-year-old Auckland man failed to do so, following the discovery of a shotgun at his property during a search warrant as part of a probe into illegal firearm possession.
The man had previously bought a rifle, which he registered into the Firearms Registry a few days after purchasing it.
The man is now facing six charges of unlawful possession of ammunition, for which he allegedly bought on behalf of cannabis trade associates who could not legally purchase guns themselves.
Te Tari Pūreke/Firearms Safety Authority executive director Angela Brazier said “this is the first prosecution of its kind”.
“It demonstrates the positive impact the registry can make on linking firearms to individual licence holders.”
“If any licence holder is found with a firearm that ought to be in the registry, but for whatever reason they might have tried to circumvent these obligations and keep firearms invisible in the community, they can expect to face the consequences.”
If convicted, the man could be fined $10,000.
He will appear in the Manukau District Court on Thursday.
https://applepaycasinoplay.com reading about the first prosecution under the new registry makes me wonder how they'd even prove the 30-day window was missed if the purchase records weren't properly logged. The detail that the man registered a rifle days after buying it but allegedly skipped it for the shotgun is what really caught my attention, since it suggests intent rather than an honest oversight. A $10,000 maximum fine feels fairly light for someone allegedly buying ammunition on behalf of people who couldn't legally buy guns themselves.
Brazier demonstrates the kind of "logic" we've come to expect from the enforcers of the law.
How did the registry relate to the purchase of ammunition? Did the police go searching the property because of the registry, or because of perceived criminal activity?
As it stands it's just an extra charge they're throwing on top of the charges relating to ammunition, like Americans throw "conspiracy" on top of other charges in order to get more convictions.