Thread: AR15 pending rule changes?

Originally Posted by Savage1

I was told the E cat system was there to make it harder for undesirable people who wanted to commit mass shootings to get their hands on an MSSA by targeting the things that appeal to them, eg large mags, pistol grip, flash suppressor. Not because they are any more dangerous than other weapons.

Just out of curiosity, who told you that? A name is fine, I can suss out thier role later.

Originally Posted by Savage1

You're not reading what I'm writing, I said nutters are attracted to MSSAs hence the Mollenar and Grey examples, very relevant. Where are your examples of people going on shooting sprees with bolt actions? There will be the odd one but far out numbered by MSSA examples. If they had the choice I would put money on which one they would have chosen and how much more damage would have they done?

I have seen people I would consider a bit strange or unstable with a FAL, I've also met many criminals with a FAL, and I've done something about it. I don't need evidence that there are some unsavoury people with a FAL, I've seen and dealt with it myself.

The A-Cat should be perfect and stop the bad people getting a FAL but lets be realistic, it doesn't. For a start it is only once every 10 years without any requirement for inspections. People can change a lot in 10 years, join a gang, develop paranoid schizophrenia etc, at least with E-Cat they should be getting regular inspections and meetings with AO. Ideally the A requirements should be equal to the E IMHO.

Our laws aren't perfect but they are pretty good I think.

How do you definite nutters? What makes Molenaar more of a "nutter" that say, Clayton Weatherston? He stabbed a girl 217 times, that sounds pretty nutty to me. Or any of the many, many other people responsible for the 1200 odd other murders that have happened in NZ since 1997 (NZ police homicide stats). You can't claim that Molenaar's access to (illegal!) MSSAs made him a more effective spree killer since his killing 'spree' was a total of 1 person (thankfully). Since Molenaar is the only example you can point to of an MSSA being even related to a crime since the introduction of the new system, and it was illegal, doesn't that support the fact that current laws don't need strengthening and criminals are just going to ignore them anyway and find ways around them?

You're cherry picking a single murder out of hundreds/thousands, claiming that it makes some kind of point while ignoring the rest. There are hundreds of "nutters" and murderers who weren't attracted to MSSAs, the fact that one guy had some illegal MSSAs doesnt prove anything.

Originally Posted by gimp

How do you definite nutters? What makes Molenaar more of a "nutter" that say, Clayton Weatherston? He stabbed a girl 217 times, that sounds pretty nutty to me. Or any of the many, many other people responsible for the 1200 odd other murders that have happened in NZ since 1997 (NZ police homicide stats). You can't claim that Molenaar's access to (illegal!) MSSAs made him a more effective spree killer since his killing 'spree' was a total of 1 person (thankfully). Since Molenaar is the only example you can point to of an MSSA being even related to a crime since the introduction of the new system, and it was illegal, doesn't that support the fact that current laws don't need strengthening and criminals are just going to ignore them anyway and find ways around them?

You're cherry picking a single murder out of hundreds/thousands, claiming that it makes some kind of point while ignoring the rest. There are hundreds of "nutters" and murderers who weren't attracted to MSSAs, the fact that one guy had some illegal MSSAs doesnt prove anything.

What the hell are you going on about?! I never said they are nuttier than others because they like guns or that people aren't mentally effected because they choose to murder with a knife!

We were lucky that Molenaar never hit most of the people he shot at but he tried to shoot many more, are you saying he would've been just as deadly with only a knife?! Would you have you prefered taking him on when he was armed with a knife rather than his SLR? How many people would have he endangered in that situation if he only had a knife. You can't claim that just because Molenaar had access to MSSA that he was no more dangerous or capable of carrying out murder.

Once again, I used Gray and Molenaar as an example of unhinged people being attracted to MSSAs. Should I use overseas examples of what weapons are used in spree killings since we don't have many spree killings here?

They never expect to stop all murders with the law, but because it won't people seem to think it will be a waste.

You state that unhinged people are attracted to MSSAs, and therefore the guns are dangerous, despite the fact that only a tiny tiny fraction of murders (which are generally commited by unhinged people) are committed with them in civilised countries, including those where that type of rifle is much cheaper and more common and less restricted than NZ. Mass shootings with MSSA type rifles are scary and emotive but absolutely not significant numbers in the overall murder rate, especially in NZ, and if someone is planning on doing it they're going to have no qualms about breaking the E cat laws anyway.

This is getting off base, the point is that further restricting pistol grips and other cosmetic features beyond the vetting etc at A cat level achieves nothing more than inconvenience and costing law abiding shooters money and time.

You think it's not because 1 guy out of several hundred murderers in NZ had an illegally owned gun with that feature. It doesn't make sense, and restricting them didn't stop him from getting one anyway.
Yes there have been a handful of others overseas, Newtown (actually used a pistol I believe, AR15 was in his car or something), Port Arthur, Breivik in Norway, etc, but it's a tiny number compared to the overall amount of people that are murdered in other ways around the world and doesn't demonstrate any particular tendency for off balance people to go for that type of weapon, if anything the low number of murders with them in the US for example (rifles in total account for only 3.5% of murders) where they're totally unrestricted in most states beyond an age limit and background check if buying from an FFL indicates their unsuitability for murder.

People are going to commit murders. Only a tiny fraction of those who are completely free to obtain them, use rifles at all, let alone semi auto rifles with evil cosmetic features.

Anyone who is going to break the law and commit a murder isn't going to care if they're breaking a gun law or two either. See for reference: Jan Molenaar.

Originally Posted by Ryan

Personally, I find that a pistol grip on a rifle is more ergonomic than a traditional grip.

It's not just you, a pistol grip allows for a steadier grip using a small group of stronger muscles compared to the twisting action that is required to hold a rifle with a conventional stock.

Hi guys, I started this thread. So think it is time to clarify what the original post was about.
I recently purchased an AR. My 2nd semi auto purchased in 13 years of being a A cat licenced firearm owner.
I have owned probably 30 bolt actions in that time. I hunt a lot. And I enjoy shooting.
I like to buy and try different rifles, fix, tinker, customise my rifles. It's a hobby. A bloody expensive one, but one I really enjoy.

So my questions were about the pending changes. What modifications will be required to keep it at A cat std, if at all possible.

I did not want a pissing match. Or who killed who with what. Or for any of the crazy arse TROLLING that is going on.

More interested in time frame, and what stock will have to be fitted?

Also really interested in a 300 BLK as a suppressed subsonic.

But not because I am a nutter. But because I like to tinker.

Please STOP the arguments! Sorry to Tussock & co.

Originally Posted by Monsterbishi

It's not just you, a pistol grip allows for a steadier grip using a small group of stronger muscles compared to the twisting action that is required to hold a rifle with a conventional stock.

And as a person who has had two hand surgeries recently both hands plus a major shoulder surgery all due to misadventure I could not agree more I was the mongrel who put a rail under my 308 so I could fit a grip as couldnt hold on to the gun. Didn't work by the way so changed calibre All good now tho . We do what we do. I suppose .

Last thing I heard was the stock on the rifle is not what they are looking at . They are going to look at the action of the rifle and the A or E classification will be based on that not on what type of stock it has.

But we are all in wait and see mode at the moment .

Ive heard different rumours from different AO's as to what is going to happen. Its interesting the info some of them are dishing out when actually none of them know any more than we do.
My best guess is that they will allow anyone with an A to migrate it to E if they want to. There maybe a licence cost involved and you will need to get an E-Cat safe. Im also guessing that they will allow the pistol grip semis to stay A in some sort of configuration - possibly with a thumbhole/drag/ stock or monsterman grip. This will be an interesting one as they would need to spec the interpretation of thumbhole/drag stock. GC have the monopoly on thumbholes at the moment and Im guessing they will hike the price just short of an E-Cat safe. I know of a couple of companies ready to manufacture a thumbhole option once the law is clarified.
Remember this is going to be a logistical nightmare for the AO's. They will probably be required to track down every A-Cat pistol grip Semi-Auto in the country - It will take a few years with insufficient staff numbers / cuts.
The above is my best guess based on a Joe Green led team. Unfortunately he's now gone - never thought I would say that.

Originally Posted by Gemini

Hi guys, I started this thread. So think it is time to clarify what the original post was about.
I recently purchased an AR. My 2nd semi auto purchased in 13 years of being a A cat licenced firearm owner.
I have owned probably 30 bolt actions in that time. I hunt a lot. And I enjoy shooting.
I like to buy and try different rifles, fix, tinker, customise my rifles. It's a hobby. A bloody expensive one, but one I really enjoy.

So my questions were about the pending changes. What modifications will be required to keep it at A cat std, if at all possible.

I did not want a pissing match. Or who killed who with what. Or for any of the crazy arse TROLLING that is going on.

More interested in time frame, and what stock will have to be fitted?

Also really interested in a 300 BLK as a suppressed subsonic.

But not because I am a nutter. But because I like to tinker.

Please STOP the arguments! Sorry to Tussock & co.

that ship has sailed mate, if you want answers its best to start a new thread with those direct questions
getting answers now is like pissing in the wind

I have heard the Molenaar's SLR's were missing from an NZDF armory - can anyone verify?

A great number of Grey's victims were shot with a semi auto .22lr - heaps of those unrestricted

The last two mass shootings in Finland were committed with .22lr's

The Texas Uni shooting was done with a sawn off shotgun and a Remington 700

Derek Birds massacre was done with a CZ452 and a double barrel shotgun

Originally Posted by Clint Ruin

Last thing I heard was the stock on the rifle is not what they are looking at . They are going to look at the action of the rifle and the A or E classification will be based on that not on what type of stock it has.

But we are all in wait and see mode at the moment .

+1

That's what my understanding of the new powers given (orders under Council). They can now classify a rifle by type, rather than cosmetic features such as a psitol grip.

Originally Posted by Gemini

Hi guys, I started this thread. So think it is time to clarify what the original post was about.
I recently purchased an AR. My 2nd semi auto purchased in 13 years of being a A cat licenced firearm owner.
I have owned probably 30 bolt actions in that time. I hunt a lot. And I enjoy shooting.
I like to buy and try different rifles, fix, tinker, customise my rifles. It's a hobby. A bloody expensive one, but one I really enjoy.

So my questions were about the pending changes. What modifications will be required to keep it at A cat std, if at all possible.

I did not want a pissing match. Or who killed who with what. Or for any of the crazy arse TROLLING that is going on.

More interested in time frame, and what stock will have to be fitted?

Also really interested in a 300 BLK as a suppressed subsonic.

But not because I am a nutter. But because I like to tinker.

Please STOP the arguments! Sorry to Tussock & co.

Best advice is get an E-Cat safe and to wait and see for the rest.
Don't go spending money on a thumbhole stock, as that may be a waste of time if 'Council' define firearms by type.

Originally Posted by dogmatix

+1

That's what my understanding of the new powers given (orders under Council). They can now classify a rifle by type, rather than cosmetic features such as a psitol grip.

That's my understanding too, though I believe if the NZ police do that they will be in for another shit fight in court as we have the rights to dispute it. I imagine this is something they will not rush in to and will possibly wait for some news worthy event to help get backing to any changes.

At the end of the day an AR15 is a modern sporting rifle not an M4 or M16.