Thread: a cat endorsed onto your e cat

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.

lol. oxymoron right there.

Seems the gentle approach by the NSA to shooters is less confrontational than previous methods on all the forums

Originally Posted by Digit

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

Dead on as far as amendment goes, had the AO round on Sunday and he was saying they aren't really being fed any solid information, basically he said he knew fuck all at this stage. Just told me to get my endorsement and have my AR registered as, quote, 'E-cat'.

Originally Posted by ishoot10s

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.

https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search...c5bcc1d08b.pdf

Paragraph 49 to 55

High Court decisions are not, I suggest, bollox [sic].. but if you want to be held in contempt.. your call.

Your MSSAs are not registered at all. There is no registration system for firearms in New Zealand. A registration system was proposed in AAB3, but AAB3 was discharged from the parliamentary order paper last year.

I think you have mistaken what the NSA posts have been about. We were not discussing anything to do with theory. The posts explain how the law has developed in a practical rather than theoretical setting.

Originally Posted by cambo

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.

There are several sources of law that are presently effecting the rights and obligations of civilian gun owners.
AAB285 is enacted but not yet in force.
What our posts have referred to has largely been about a recent High Court decision.
Some of the issues in that High Court decision are still sub-judice.

The controversy surrounding the use of the alphabet by police is old hat and has been around since June 2009. See the link in my previous post if you'd like to read it for yourself.


More information will be provided in a few days when we have a further clarification we are expecting from the High Court. The settled issues are (1) a P2P is not required to manufacture an endorsable firearm in New Zealand (2) Contrary to the edict in the police arms officers manual, security precautions do not have to be installed, inspected and approved prior to the issue of an endorsement.

================================================== =========================================
PLEASE NOTE: Nothing in our posts intends in anyway to convey the rules and procedures concerning firearms ownership from the police perspective. We do not view the police as an authority on firearms law. Our posts concern the law as determined by Parliament and the Courts; not police opinion. Police administer the Arms Act; nothing more.

Originally Posted by NSA;149940High Court decisions are not, I suggest, bollox [sic

.. but if you want to be held in contempt.. your call.
Your MSSAs are not registered at all. There is no registration system for firearms in New Zealand. A registration system was proposed in AAB3, but AAB3 was discharged from the parliamentary order paper last year.
I think you have mistaken what the NSA posts have been about. We were not discussing anything to do with theory. The posts explain how the law has developed in a practical rather than theoretical setting.

Actually, there are many examples of questionable decisions in our courts, not excluding the High Court. But this isn't a court session so I'm hardly "in contempt"...

I seems to me that Mr Jenner was found in possession of MSSA's which he had obtained or possibly had prior to a change of Act, without following the process of obtaining a Permit To Procure for them. A process that, if followed, would result in the serials of the MSSA's being noted as being in his possession in the police computer. Effectively REGISTERED to him. You can continue to state that there's no registration system for firearms in this country, but, for MSSA's, pistols and Restricted weapons, there effectively most certainly is. Whilst it may not be officially called "Registration" the fact is, the process of linking certain firearms to certain individuals exists, and that is registration. The explosives etc aside, Mr Jenner would have faired better if the police had had no surprises when they visited him. If his entire MSSA and Restricted Weapon inventory had been noted as being in his possession on the police computer, he would probably not have faced those additional charges and the attempt by Ms McKenzie to second guess Parliament on behalf of the Attorney General and re-interpret the "Endorsement" would not have arisen.

Anyone considered this to do a Cat C M16 "machine gun" into a Cat E semi-auto MSSA? I'd quite like to shoot a "proper" ex-military M16 rather than an AR15 in service rifle. Ive seen a few M16s still with fire select for full auto at reasonable money.

regards

Unlikely. Pistols moved from B to C are not usually allowed to be moved back. That said, some have been able to do it, like a lot of what goes on around our licences, it seems to be at the discretion of your local AO. For what is effectively a deconstruction of a machine gun, I seriously doubt it would be entertained.

As an aside, any FA M16 is quite likely to have been flogged to death and probably make the shooter uncompetitive in Service Rifle on the range.

Originally Posted by steven

Anyone considered this to do a Cat C M16 "machine gun" into a Cat E semi-auto MSSA? I'd quite like to shoot a "proper" ex-military M16 rather than an AR15 in service rifle. Ive seen a few M16s still with fire select for full auto at reasonable money.
regards

Since its not illegal to do it (as in there is nothing in the law preventing it) there is no reason why not. In the past plenty of full-autos were brought into the country and converted to semi-auto (how do you think G3s arrived here).

Under current police practice it is not permitted after they adopted a policy of "once a machinegun, always a machinegun". This of course has no basis in law and if you wanted to spend the money you would probably win on a legal challenge. Especially since there are already plenty of "ex-machine guns" in circulation. It also highlights how completely illogical the police policy is on Semi-autos where they will not allow people to restrict the operation of a full-auto to semi-auto on a matter of principle only.

I think the ex NZDF L1A1's are converted auto's. A member in our service club has an ex-Nam M16 on A cat. Coolest A cat AR in the country.

Originally Posted by Beavis

I think the ex NZDF L1A1's are converted auto's..

They aren't. Our L1A1's were only ever semi auto from the factory. That's not to say some were never briefly converted in the field by those who new how to with nothing but a match. The conversion prior to them being sold out of service in the late '80's involved the removal of the safety sear and the welding of a washer in its place, and the grinding off of the safety sear engagement notch on the hammer. These mods actually render the SLR unsafe in that the hammer can drop on firing pin tail with the bolt not fully in battery...

The discussion about converting a full auto into a semi (sorry but I will not go down the alphabet road) is easy. Had this recently with an UZI. The process is simple.

You convert the firearm into a semi-automatic
You give notice under s39 of the destruction of the restricted weapon: Arms Act 1983 No 44 (as at 01 July 2013), Public Act 39 Loss, theft, or destruction – New Zealand Legislation

The notice informs police that the destruction has occurred due to the firearm being disassembled and used as parts for a different firearm or firearm(s). Optionally you can advise police of the newly created semi-auto. You could get carried away and stamp an "S" appended the existing serial number... this will avoid random questions from the AO... but if your into standing up straight, just answer any queries as "need to know basis and you don't need to know."

That's all there is too it. No need to engage with police policy at all. Once a s39 notice is served, the statutory provisions kick in and police have no choice or say in the matter.

Ive handled a few AD stamped l1a1's over here and there metric cousins and they have all had the ... ........ into the upper reciever and the ....... ....... hadn't been machined out. And that was all from the factory, not after market. With the .. .... .... in place they can safely have the full auto function as they were intended. They may have been semi auto when issued to the troops but that will be due to missing certain components more than anything.

Originally Posted by NSA

The controversy surrounding the use of the alphabet by police is old hat and has been around since June 2009. See the link in my previous post if you'd like to read it for yourself.

NSA - After reading the court summary of that particular case (https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search...c5bcc1d08b.pdf ) you have highlighted, there is nothing there that indicates, to me, that the licence catagories/endorsements (A, C, E etc) are no longer relevant or as you have put it, just letters of the alphabet.
In fact it stated that a FAL holder is required to obtain those particular licence endorsements/catagories under the arms act to be able to hold 1 of those particular weapons.
The Judge's decision of that case has also brought up the issue of then each individual MSSA or pistol has to have a separate endorsement rather than 1 particular endorsement to cover all/any weapons classed as needing a particular licence endorsement.

And those licence endorsements were brought about in 1992 when the Arms Act was amended after the events at Aramoana. (paragraph 43)

What, I think, you have highlighted or brought to our attention is the defendants application(s) which was refused/denied by the Judge in his ruling.



There is obviously still a lot to do and sort out.

So rather than jumping to conclusions over this issue, I'll wait till the proper authorities inform us of the actual changes to the FAL regulations.

For those interested in the original theme of the thread, Arms Officers have been told "No A's to E".

Originally Posted by cambo

NSA - After reading the court summary of that particular case (https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search...c5bcc1d08b.pdf ) you have highlighted, there is nothing there that indicates, to me, that the licence catagories/endorsements (A, C, E etc) are no longer relevant or as you have put it, just letters of the alphabet.
In fact it stated that a FAL holder is required to obtain those particular licence endorsements/catagories under the arms act to be able to hold 1 of those particular weapons.
The Judge's decision of that case has also brought up the issue of then each individual MSSA or pistol has to have a separate endorsement rather than 1 particular endorsement to cover all/any weapons classed as needing a particular licence endorsement.

And those licence endorsements were brought about in 1992 when the Arms Act was amended after the events at Aramoana. (paragraph 43)

What, I think, you have highlighted or brought to our attention is the defendants application(s) which was refused/denied by the Judge in his ruling.



There is obviously still a lot to do and sort out.

So rather than jumping to conclusions over this issue, I'll wait till the proper authorities inform us of the actual changes to the FAL regulations.

Sounds good... you do that.