a cat endorsed onto your e cat

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beavis

I think what NSA is saying is - each MSSA you have, has it's own separate endorsement, the fact you have the E stamped on your license means you are legally entitled to obtain an endorsement for an MSSA.

---

But now we won't have E physically stamped on our licence?

I'm going to go see my arms officer this week and see if she understands this

I think NSA need to come back and supply the full list of implemented changes (if any) from a credible source (ie the Police).
Otherwise it's just a load of hearsay.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Digit

But now we won't have E physically stamped on our licence?

---

Yes you would - it allows you to obtain an endorsement for an MSSA. At least that is how I interpret it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cambo

I think NSA need to come back and supply the full list of implemented changes (if any) from a credible source (ie the Police).
Otherwise it's just a load of hearsay.

---

This is a totally seperate issue to the arms amendment bill, if that is what you are thinking of. The only credible source is the courts.

It will be interesting to see what interpretation is passed on to the AO's.

Which might result in more litigation. Great system aye

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Digit

It will be interesting to see what interpretation is passed on to the AO's.

---

And that is the 6 mllion dollar question

In my opinion, that interpretation of the "endorsement" is bollox and clearly not supported by either my Licence, or by the Police Firearms Manual.

My Licence clearly states "Endorsements B E" and the PFM clearly states "A Firearms Licence with an E endorsement permits the holder to possess military style semi- automatic (MSSA) firearms." Note the use of the word "firearms" plural. That is significant and indicates the single E endorsement I have on my licence is valid for as many MSSA' s as I care to own.

My MSSA's are REGISTERED to me, they are not endorsed to me....

It's all semantics anyway. The theory remains the same.

That is the logical way but not the way a judge interpreted it. It's a fuckin mess

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beavis

This is a totally seperate issue to the arms amendment bill, if that is what you are thinking of. The only credible source is the courts.

---

I think it's all the same thing Beavis.
It's everything that we have all been waiting for.
We need the know the changes that are affecting all FAL holders, the classifications of the rifles we own, and the requirements we need to follow so as not to break any laws etc.
Without the clarifications to the "new" FAL rules, we are just speculating and possibly making things harder.

Like I said before the police don't have any official policies lined up. There are no transitional provisions. If the regs came into effect tomorrow we are all criminals.

But there aren't any regulations so don't panic

Interesting times. Imagine the discussions going on at HQ, the changes that are going to have to be implemented in policy, structure and paperwork. All timed to coincide with a poorly thought out amendment implementation and 10 year cycles on licence renewals due. And to top it off a team of poorly resourced AO's are going to be left going :wtfsmilie:

Just to clear up some confusion are we talking about NSA's statement of claims against police that went before a judge not long ago or are we talking arms amendment stuff?