Pearce became angry and questioned the ticket.
"I did get a little mouthy at him, I couldn't see why he was bothering."
He "lost it" a little, and told the officer others around town were breaking the law and asked why he was not looking for them.
Three days later Pearce received a letter from the police.
The contents warned him concerns had been raised about the suitability for him to hold his firearms licence, referring to how he had been "very obnoxious", swearing and being dismissive to the officer when pulled over.
"To be a firearms licence holder you are deemed to prove that you are a fit and proper person... and on this occasion, you lacked to show this with your behaviour when dealing with police."
The letter advised Pearce no action would be taken beyond the warning. Pearce was told to take note any future reports could impact the retention of his licence.
Pearce believed it was vindictive and said there was an imbalance in that he was unable to have his say.
Pearce said the ticket was not the issue, he accepted he was speeding and he accepted he was "colourful" in his rudeness. His issue was with the subsequent warning and lack of ability to respond other than to a generic police email.
"That's all I can do. I cannot address the issue."
About two weeks after receiving the warning letter, Pearce contacted the Rotorua Daily Post.
Police were asked if the officer's actions were standard procedure and for a response to Pearce's comments about the letter being vindictive and unfair.
A spokesperson said, in general, a firearms licence holder must be deemed fit and proper.
Police expect officers who have a concerning interaction with a firearms licence holder to make a report so it can be followed up, which could range from a warning letter to licence suspension or revocation, they said.
If a warning letter is issued, no further action is taken.
However, the letter is retained on file, and any further incidents may be considered in the context of earlier incidents.
"In the specific case of Mr Pearce, he had the right to respond to the warning letter issued to him and has done so. Police will respond to him directly in due course."
But after sending his response email to a different address, Pearce received a phone call — and an apology.
Pearce said the call came from Bay of Plenty district arms manager Steve Wells, who told him the warning was being rescinded.
Having asked for written confirmation of what had been discussed on the phone, Pearce said he received it in an email last Friday from Wells.
A review into the matter surrounding the warning letter found it was "made in error" given the circumstances, and Wells apologised on behalf of the police and district firearms team.
A police spokesperson also confirmed to the Rotorua Daily Post the apology and warning were being rescinded and said local staff would take the opportunity to review training and procedures to ensure they are in line with national policy and procedures.
They said officers did not need to look up whether the member of the public they were interacting with was a firearms licence holder, but it came up automatically when finding information about an individual during a roadside stop.
The report the officer made was managed by regional staff rather than a centralised national team, which generally managed this type of incident.
"It is true in the case of Mr Pearce that a letter is unlikely to have been issued to him had the information been managed through that different channel."
Pearce said it came as a relief: "It's not something you want on your record".
He was happy with the news of the training.
"The whole thing didn't need to happen."
The situation had been stressful and came as he struggled with issues at work relating to supply and delivery problems, he said.
