Page 2 of 6
Re: Seems our laws aren't all that bad.
Posted: Tue Jul 15, 2014 11:29 pm
by Grizzly
DaveB wrote:Grizzly wrote:saddler wrote:Not sure when you last looked at New Zealand, but the get out clause on pistol grips/thumb-hole stocks went a while back.
A military style cannot be downgraded to sporting "A" Class now by adding a thumb-hole stock
Useful to know thanks. Although regarding full auto's I'm thinking of guns you can actually shoot.. On further reading it seems "participation in service-rifle or IPSC 3-gun competitions" is a valid reason to apply for CAT E and a "Military-Style Semi-Automatic" ....so they have options.
Actually Saddler's information is a bit dated. Yes in 2009 Police did change their interpretation to make the addition of a thumbhole stock insufficient to change the definition of an AR15 from MSSA (Military Style Semi-Auto - 'E' Category) to a sporting firearm 'A' Category. They subsequently
lost the resulting court case and that interpretation of a pistol grip was struck down.
For a wonderful but brief period we were able to buy an AR15 on an A licence, so long as it didn't have any of the other offending MSSA features (telescoping stock, flash eliminator, bayonet lug, high-capacity magazines).
In December a new Arms Amendment Bill was passed. Those who bought ARs during the period when the law was struck down had until June to either: apply for an 'E' endorsed licence to hold an MSSA - and most did; or change the stock to a thumbhole type and keep their AR as an A Category sporting firearm.
I doubt Police have given up - likely we will hear from them on this subject again, but for now it is once again, perfectly legal to buy and own an AR15 on a sporting "A" endorsement so long as it does not have any of the evil MSSA features. All you need is a stock like this one, and you are good to go.
As a side-benefit, the Military Rifle Association shoots are enjoying a real surge of popularity what will all the brand-new 'E' Category shooters out there. :cheers:
Interesting. So the Police interpretation which was eventually lost had the indirect affect of increasing the overall number of CAT E holders. Happy days.
Re: Seems our laws aren't all that bad.
Posted: Tue Jul 15, 2014 11:29 pm
by SevenSixTwo
Meanwhile in New York State...
Re: Seems our laws aren't all that bad.
Posted: Tue Jul 15, 2014 11:46 pm
by snayperskaya
SevenSixTwo wrote:Meanwhile in New York State...
My eyes are bleeding!!!!!, thats hideous
Re: Seems our laws aren't all that bad.
Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2014 12:37 am
by SevenSixTwo
Hideous perhaps but it doesn't have a 'high capacity assault clip' or a 'shoulder thing that goes up' and it's not even 'Gun Show loophole capable'. This keeps the libtards happy.
Re: Seems our laws aren't all that bad.
Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2014 1:43 am
by Middlebridge
Being fairly new to shooting I've been surprised at how reasonable our laws seem, not what I expected. Most complaints I hear are from ex pistol shooters, something I never had a chance to experience so don't know what I'm missing.
Re: Seems our laws aren't all that bad.
Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2014 6:37 am
by snayperskaya
SevenSixTwo wrote:Hideous perhaps but it doesn't have a 'high capacity assault clip' or a 'shoulder thing that goes up' and it's not even 'Gun Show loophole capable'. This keeps the libtards happy.
- download (1).jpg (7.51 KiB) Viewed 578 times
Re: Seems our laws aren't all that bad.
Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2014 6:48 am
by Sandgroper
I'd take NZ over Australia any day - in fact, once my son has finished High School (assuming nothing drastic happens
) it's off to NZ!
Re: Seems our laws aren't all that bad.
Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2014 7:23 am
by Chuck
Methinks SevenSixtwo was being sarcastic with his "high capacity assault clip" and parodying some female American antigun nutter who thought that banning magazines as an idea as once magazines were used up they were finshed and shooters wouldrun out of magazines!
http://reason.com/blog/2013/04/03/congr ... -the-assau
Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Colo.) is the chief co-sponsor, with Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.), of the High Capacity Ammunition Feeding Device Act, which would ban the sale or transfer of magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds. Upon reintroducing the bill in January, she said banning what she calls "assault magazines" would "go a long way toward making our country safe." If DeGette seems overly optimistic about the potential impact of her legislation, especially given the fact that many millions of "high-capacity ammunition feeding devices" would remain in circulation, perhaps that's because she does not realize magazines are reusable. At a Denver Post forum on gun control yesterday, DeGette explained why she thinks her bill would be effective
What's the efficacy of banning these magazine clips? I will tell you these are ammunition, they're bullets, so the people who have those now, they're going to shoot them. And so if you ban them in the future, the number of these high-capacity magazines is going to decrease dramatically over time because the bullets will have been shot and there won't be any more available. .
De gette - More like de Dumcluck!
Re: Seems our laws aren't all that bad.
Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2014 7:57 am
by SevenSixTwo
Yup. These are the kind of idiots we're all up against.
The tragedy is; the public buys into it - and they vote...
Re: Seems our laws aren't all that bad.
Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2014 7:57 am
by Blackstuff
It seems to me that outside of the UK firearms restrictions seem to be almost entirely either based on Hollywood gun myths or purely cosmetic (i.e. no pump-actions, nothing that
looks like a military gun, no 'flash hiders' etc etc) . Whereas the UK legisaltion knows exactly where to cut to make an actual difference (for the worse) to the gun i.e. the action
