Through you, Chair, if I may, the obvious problem this is creating is there are parts of a firearm that have no serial number on them, which is what we're trying to address, which then means that in some circumstances—you've described the converse—in the obverse where that firearm part is not destroyed and it ends up back in the hands of the person who committed the offence.
As I think you mentioned previously, they could petition the court to receive their possessions back.
Am I correct in that particular part—not the firearm part—of the conversation?