Thread: Access to AR s are about to change

A few spare barrels and whatnot

Originally Posted by Bill999

sounds a little like ban panic

Totally. Everybody follow suit and make even more flood in.

Originally Posted by Beavis

Totally. Everybody follow suit and make even more flood in.

NNNNNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!

Everything I had my eye on is only just coming back into stock at Brownells now!

Does everyone see a time when buying an AR in NZ regardless to configuration (A or E) will be a no go ?
Will we see the outlets that currently sell them being denied permits to import ?
I suppose if yes is the predominant answer than folks need to own a few new ones as spares that don't get used until needed ?

Originally Posted by Happy

Does everyone see a time when buying an AR in NZ regardless to configuration (A or E) will be a no go ?
Will we see the outlets that currently sell them being denied permits to import ?
I suppose if yes is the predominant answer than folks need to own a few new ones as spares that don't get used until needed ?

Surely they can't just out right ban something because they feel like it.
There is plenty of evidence that synthetic cannabis is bad for you and does society no favours what so ever, yet they are struggling to ban it.
Yet how come they can so easily ban ARs and other scary rifles.

If they are trying to classify them as E cat just so they can make sure responsible gun owners are the ones who own them, I don't really object to that. But if it's going to be the first step to banning them then I definitely am not keen on the idea.

After this whole debarcle is over are they still going to have the crazy law that requires you to have a current E cat gun destroyed in order to import a new one?

Originally Posted by scaggly

NNNNNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!

Everything I had my eye on is only just coming back into stock at Brownells now!

Don't worry, we won't make a dent in Brownells stock. Nz is a tiny market even in ban panic mode.

Originally Posted by Beetroot

If they are trying to classify them as E cat just so they can make sure responsible gun owners are the ones who own them, I don't really object to that.

I do, there shouldn't be an irresponsible gun owner - if you can own any gun, you should be able to own Any Gun.

After this whole debarcle is over are they still going to have the crazy law that requires you to have a current E cat gun destroyed in order to import a new one?

It's not a law, it's a police policy that has no legislative basis and no practical purpose aside from inconveniencing the most law abiding shooters and costing them a fortune.


I think that with current legislation they'd struggle to enact a policy of a ban on AR15 rifles/parts and have it hold up, short of having "being an AR15/clone" declared an MSSA feature. Which still leaves endorsed firearms and is meaningless as far as preventing any crime at all. It's just a mindless policy of civil disarmament.

Everyone should get their E endorsement and own an MSSA AR15 and a featureless ("A cat")one. And whatever other cool shit they want.

Originally Posted by Savage1

Well you all go on about how stupid/pointless the new laws are so don't be surprised if they try and amend them to effect the purpose.

Ha, good point.

Originally Posted by Beavis

It sort of makes me wonder how long before they start having a cry baby over certain chamberings (.50BMG etc)

Based on the internet conjecture from the OP. .338s (projectiles?) are going to be restricted too..... Related ideas?
I think someone's either shit stirring or needs to add some credibility to their statements.

Originally Posted by gimp

He shouldn't have had any guns regardless of how scary they looked

This, basically. He was trespassed from a book store on lower Stuart St for threatening one of the workers with a shotgun in a cardboard box, or something. Police should have, at the very least, reassessed his mental state (which was rapidly degenerating at this point).

As many people as possible should exercise the right to be granted and hold an E endorsement (unless unfit/improper) so that it is more difficult to remove that right.

Originally Posted by gimp

Don't worry, we won't make a dent in Brownells stock. Nz is a tiny market even in ban panic mode.

Sadly, you speak the truth. Although I do try quite hard to make my own contribution to the Brownells profit margin on a fairly regular basis

I don't think they would be out to all out ban them, if they were going to outright ban a type of firearm it would much more likely be pistols they would be after.

If I was sitting on the fence between getting a thumbhole stock or apply for E endorsement, I'd go for the endorsement, I'd see it as future proofing.

At the end of the day, it should be left alone. It would be much more productive trying to make people more aware of firearms safety, like not shooting each other, than going after an imaginary boogy man to try and please the UN. A much more efficient use of time and resources, but that's just my opinion.

Originally Posted by Savage1

Well you all go on about how stupid/pointless the new laws are so don't be surprised if they try and amend them to effect the purpose.

While it's satisfying in a way to say "I told you so", I'd rather they just left it alone.

We were all correct in saying that it was pointless, retarded and achieves nothing more than inconvenience to law abiding shooters, it's just taken the police this long to realise it. Assuming these extremely insubstantial rumours are correct. "the police want to control guns further".... well, no shit.

I need to get off my fat ass and start getting an AR...