So apparently we're all criminals for following the law thenMattnall wrote:Well, you will insist on owning a 'dangerous firearm'.Sixshot6 wrote: Following the law, fancy that. Anyone think I as a MARs owner need to be worried at all?

Moderator: dromia
So apparently we're all criminals for following the law thenMattnall wrote:Well, you will insist on owning a 'dangerous firearm'.Sixshot6 wrote: Following the law, fancy that. Anyone think I as a MARs owner need to be worried at all?
Following the law is not always following what was the intention behind the law ! Edit to say I am not against working within the law to achieve progress but lets face it, when they banned semi autos it was ARs and AKs that they were thinking of.Sixshot6 wrote:Following the law, fancy that. Anyone think I as a MARs owner need to be worried at all?Mattnall wrote:Looks like someone is rattled by the lever-release and MARS style of rifle.7.34(2) Modernisation – ensure the law is fit for purpose in the 21st century and
takes account of technological advances. There is evidence to suggest
that dangerous firearms are now being manufactured with the purpose of
ensuring they do not fall within the definition of ‘prohibited weapon’. This
is because the Acts do not take into account recent developments and
opportunities for firearms manufacture. Codification would ensure the law
is adaptable and can be easily amended to take account of these recent
developments.
I'm curious as to how they could change the definition of Manual opp so easily also. But then again nothing surprises me anymore.
I know that "spirit of the law" crap and they still have AR type rifles that don't have the "features". I guess we'll just have to wait and see and try and proactively try and avoid being screwed over.breacher wrote:
Following the law is not always following what was the intention behind the law !
If they want to get rid of straightpulls, they will probably go down the same road as the US states that prohibited rifles that LOOK like assault rifles.
I had some rifles returned from Australia as, although they were legal as far as the customs were concerned and passed every test they did, the State Police deemed them to look especially dangerous and so were not allowed to be forwarded. Luckily customs said they could be returned.breacher wrote:
Following the law is not always following what was the intention behind the law !
If they want to get rid of straightpulls, they will probably go down the same road as the US states that prohibited rifles that LOOK like assault rifles.
Yes - and dont you think they can see HOW those states have gotten around it by fitting "sporting stocks" to ARs AKs etc - and would just ban firearms "resembling military firearms".Sixshot6 wrote:I know that "spirit of the law" crap and they still have AR type rifles that don't have the "features". I guess we'll just have to wait and see and try and proactively try and avoid being screwed over.breacher wrote:
Following the law is not always following what was the intention behind the law !
If they want to get rid of straightpulls, they will probably go down the same road as the US states that prohibited rifles that LOOK like assault rifles.
And how would they define that, you have to define what is banned for it to be so.Sixshot6 wrote:breacher wrote:
Yes - and dont you think they can see HOW those states have gotten around it by fitting "sporting stocks" to ARs AKs etc - and would just ban firearms "resembling military firearms".
I seem to recall the only legal straight pull AR in Australia was made there, is not legal in two states and had to be built from the ground up with its own upper and lower.Mattnall wrote:I had some rifles returned from Australia as, although they were legal as far as the customs were concerned and passed every test they did, the State Police deemed them to look especially dangerous and so were not allowed to be forwarded. Luckily customs said they could be returned.breacher wrote:
Following the law is not always following what was the intention behind the law !
If they want to get rid of straightpulls, they will probably go down the same road as the US states that prohibited rifles that LOOK like assault rifles.
"They" tend to define things by certain specific attributes, pistol grip stocks, flash hiders, bayonet lugs, removable magazines, etc., i.e. California, New Zealand.Sixshot6 wrote:And how would they define that, you have to define what is banned for it to be so.Sixshot6 wrote:breacher wrote:
Yes - and dont you think they can see HOW those states have gotten around it by fitting "sporting stocks" to ARs AKs etc - and would just ban firearms "resembling military firearms".
Just what I thought, but at the end, should I and anyone else with a MARS/Lever release/Whatever else comes soon, be worried at all?saddler wrote:"They" tend to define things by certain specific attributes, pistol grip stocks, flash hiders, bayonet lugs, removable magazines, etc., i.e. California, New Zealand.Sixshot6 wrote:
And how would they define that, you have to define what is banned for it to be so.
Shooters in such states/countries can then make some attempt to NOT be caught up in the political frenzy by making the gun less "military" in appearance.
Total bollox of course as the bullet that comes out of the muzzle is the same in either case & what a gun does or doesn't look like (Assault Rifle/Star Wars Blaster/Uncle Fred's deer stalking rifle, etc.) has NO EFFECT on it's ballistic performance.
Smoke & mirrors, innit!!
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 10 guests