SSAA NSW

Sporting Shooters Association of Australia (NSW) Inc. 23 Like our Facebook page and keep up with the latest: www.facebook.com/ssaansw The fact is that this fi rearm was safe. The Crown did not prove beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant "… did not take all reasonable precautions to ensure that a fi rearm was safely kept". The Section 40(1)(d) Section 40 sets out the requirements imposed on Category A and B licence holders in relation to a licensed fi rearm. Section 40(1) states that the holder of such a licence must comply with the following requirements in respect of any fi rearm to which the licence applies. Section 40(1)(a) commences with the phrase "when any such fi rearm is not actually being used or carried …". What follows is that subsequent subsections specify the storage requirements pertaining to such a fi rearm. Section 40(1)(b) and Section 40(1)(c) deal with the mandated receptacle to be used to store the fi rearm when not actually being used or carried. Section 40(1)(d) deals with the storage of ammunition for the fi rearm referred to in the earlier parts of the section. That is, it must be a reference to the fi rearm not actually being used or carried. Having just set out the type of receptacle to be used for the storage of a fi rearm not being used or carried the section then deals with the storage of the ammunition or the stored fi rearm requiring that it must be stored in a locked container and that container must be separate from the receptacle in which the fi rearm is stored. The prosecution for an offence under Section 40(1)(d) in relation to the ammunition located in the appellant's vehicle was misconceived and doomed to fail given that both the ammunition and the fi rearm were not being stored but rather were being transported to another location. The Section 64 offence If the interpretation of "handle" that the Crown advocates is correct, it means that if Mr Diamond had carried the case with the disassembled gun from inside the house to the licensed storage receptacle, given that he was under the infl uence of alcohol, he would be committing an offence under Section 64(1) and he would be liable for imprisonment for a period of fi ve years. I do not accept that Parliament intended such acts to fall within Section 64(1). I do not accept that Parliament intended that to "handle" a fi rearm included to transport the container in which a disassembled gun was packed, in circumstances that would not otherwise constitute a breach of the Firearms Act or Regulations. It is accepted that it is inherently dangerous for a person to truly "handle" a fi rearm while under the infl uence of alcohol and that concern for public safety provides the justifi cation and explanation for the existence of Section 64(1) and the maximum penalty of fi ve years imprisonment. However, in this situation it was no more inherently dangerous for an intoxicated person to carry a gun case with a disassembled, unloaded and packed fi rearm a few metres from a house to a parked car than it would be for a sober person to do so. This fact highlights that Parliament could not have intended its careful selection of the word "handle" and deletion of the phrase "carry or possess" from the earlier legislation to result in the word "handle" being given a far broader meaning than the normal use of the word "handle" warrants effectively reinstating the deleted word "carry" into the section. In my view the Crown has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Mr Michael Diamond handled a fi rearm while under the infl uence of alcohol." This information was provided by Hartmann & Associates Level 4, 135 Macquarie Street Sydney NSW 2000 Tel. 02 9247 4967 Follow us on Twitter and share your thoughts: https://twitter.com/ssaansw

• Cover