Thread: a cat endorsed onto your e cat

We'll just have to wait and see where we're at when the dust settles.

Originally Posted by Haydendev

?
i have a couple of endorsements on licence, and several endorsed firearms and have only every payed $204 fee once. all done in last few years

The fee is not for the endorsement, it's for the application. The application can include multiple endorsements with no extra fee.

Originally Posted by NSA

The fee is not for the endorsement, it's for the application. The application can include multiple endorsements with no extra fee.

how can anyone justify a $204 fee for an endorsement for a FIREARM to be attached to an endorsed licence holder or whatever the hell you want to call it, if u have to pay a fee for every new endorsement requiring firearm, what is this fee for? for a licence endorsement, it makes sense, there is vetting done, checks and whatever else, but for what you are saying that each "firearm" needs an endorsement not the FA licence holder, there is effectively nothing to be done, and no reason for the application to be denied as the applicant will be a fit and proper person as you were saying. what is the point? why is there a fee? or the endorsement for the firearm required at all?

Originally Posted by Haydendev

how can anyone justify a $204 fee for an endorsement for a FIREARM to be attached to an endorsed licence holder or whatever the hell you want to call it, if u have to pay a fee for every new endorsement requiring firearm, what is this fee for? for a licence endorsement, it makes sense, there is vetting done, checks and whatever else, but for what you are saying that each "firearm" needs an endorsement not the FA licence holder, there is effectively nothing to be done, and no reason for the application to be denied as the applicant will be a fit and proper person as you were saying. what is the point? why is there a fee? or the endorsement for the firearm required at all?

Agree 100% ... presumably you will make a submission in the next round of select committee meetings.

Originally Posted by NSA

Agree 100% ... presumably you will make a submission in the next round of select committee meetings.

would like to... but no, as i have no idea how. dont even know what select committee meetings you mean.
also is hard to make a submission about something when there is no definite information about the subject out there, everything you have said on this topic is the first i have heard about any of it. maybe i live in a bubble. ( totally possible) haha

No reply to my comments/questions 'NSA' ?

Originally Posted by Haydendev

would like to... but no, as i have no idea how. dont even know what select committee meetings you mean.
also is hard to make a submission about something when there is no definite information about the subject out there, everything you have said on this topic is the first i have heard about any of it. maybe i live in a bubble. ( totally possible) haha

Here is a link to a guide on how to make a submission.

New Zealand Parliament - Making a Submission to a Parliamentary Select Committee

Originally Posted by Haydendev

how can anyone justify a $204 fee for an endorsement for a FIREARM to be attached to an endorsed licence holder or whatever the hell you want to call it, if u have to pay a fee for every new endorsement requiring firearm, what is this fee for? for a licence endorsement, it makes sense, there is vetting done, checks and whatever else, but for what you are saying that each "firearm" needs an endorsement not the FA licence holder, there is effectively nothing to be done, and no reason for the application to be denied as the applicant will be a fit and proper person as you were saying. what is the point? why is there a fee? or the endorsement for the firearm required at all?

User pays dude. Use the system pay the $. It's inherent in pretty much everything else in life, participants in shooting sports aren't an exception.

Right.

There's a lot of BS being bantered around.

The most recent Lincoln case was loaded onto Judicial Decisions Online TODAY.

Here are the details: Lincoln v Commissioner of Police, CIV-2012-409-000866 (that's the case number), 18 July 2013.

Search for it here: https://forms.justice.govt.nz/jdo/Search.jsp

Yeah, it's classic. The eejits who draft the Act stuff everyone up by trying to be too fancy with their wording, which gives wiggle room in both directions. When they say "Supply" they should have said "Sell" and when they say "Procure" they should have said "Buy". And if the "Permit To Procure" was instead a "Permit To Possess", there would be much less need for some of these arguments. What's ended up happening, with these constant NSA-type challenges though, is that people in a position of influence like Joe Green get the hump and start being even less accommodating towards shooters applications because they take the challenges as an insult... I don't disagree with the intent of the NSA in as much as they are trying to keep the Police honest and consistent in their interpretation of the relevant sections of the Act. Just not entirely sure their approach is best.

Interesting to see that the judge pretty much confirmed what I suspected, MSSA registration exists.

Originally Posted by NSA

The court has not annulled what you refer to as an "E licence" endorsement. There is no such a thing in law as an 'E licence' or an 'E endorsement'; nor has there ever been such a thing. A [fill in your alphabetic letter here] endorsement is and always has been a figment of police imagination. At no time has such an endorsement existed in law.

Here is what an endorsement looks like

{Firearm} <-> [Endorsement] <-> {Licence} <-> {licence holder}

An endorsement is required for:

A Pistol
A Military style semiautomatic firearm
A Restricted Weapon

Each of these three types of firearms is defined in the Arms Act, s2 and augmented by regulations (Arms Regulations 1992)

A, E, B, F etc endorsements are defined nowhere; they do not exist, nada, null, nothing, nil, zilch and so on and so on. They carry the same status as a 'Fixed overhead Twizzlers' endorsement... i.e there is no such a thing !

I think I understand what you're getting at (correct me if I'm wrong - just trying to understand): the legislation doesn't "label" the various endorsements "A-cat", "E-cat" etc.

It would seem to me that the correct legal "terminology" should be: Pistol Endorsement, MSSA Endorsement etc.

That said, it seems that the Police choose to call an "MSSA Endorsement" an "E-cat" endorsement etc. You're saying this isn't technically right/lawful?

That said, the Police are probably entitled to use such "informal labels" under the regulations for every day purposes?

It might be helpful if you could also please comment on your view that each MSSA Endorsement only relates to a specific firearm, and reconcile that with paragraphs 17-19 of the 2013 Lincoln case? Paras 17-19 set out what I think most peoples understanding of the current situation is - that is:
- an Endorsement can be applied for, granted, and held, without being specific to one particular MSSA/Pistol/Firearm.
- generally speaking that Endorsement makes it lawful for you to be in possession of firearms of the endorsed type.
- the Permit to Procure makes it lawful for your to obtain (i.e. actually take possession of) the actual endorsed firearm (conversions now excepted).

Is the issue here one of a general MSSA Endorsement (allowing multiple MSSA's to be ultimately possessed (pursuant to Permits to Procure)) vs an MSSA Endorsement issued with a condition that it relates specifically to only one MSSA? I don't know anyone that had to specify on their MSSA Endorsement application the type of MSSA they were gong to get...

Not being argumentative, I'm just a little confused reading your posts......

Originally Posted by ishoot10s

Interesting to see that the judge pretty much confirmed what I suspected, MSSA registration exists.

Except for semis modified into MSSA's (para 34)? No permit to procure required = no way of keeping tabs.....?

The part I would like to see changed is that a MSSA holder should be allowed to instruct/train and allow a non endorsed shooter to use the endorsed shooters MSSA for the purposes of training. Without the risk of being prosecuted. I have even spoken with AOs who have said this law is senseless and one even felt he may look the other way if he saw it happen as the safe use of firearms was his stated aim and safe instruction leads to safe use in his opinion.

If Pistols can be used by unendorsed then MSSAs should be able to aswell if under supervision.

Cheers.

Originally Posted by murky

The most recent Lincoln case was loaded onto Judicial Decisions Online TODAY.

Here are the details: Lincoln v Commissioner of Police, CIV-2012-409-000866 (that's the case number), 18 July 2013.

Search for it here: https://forms.justice.govt.nz/jdo/Search.jsp

In April 2012 Arms Officer Bruce indicated to Mr Lincoln that his then residence in a house bus was problematic, given the requirements of regulation 28.

Actual lol !

I only skimmed through it, but does this mean that if you have an E on your license, you can go ahead and slap a 25 rounder into your 10/22 with no need for a P2P?

A permit to procure under s 35 of the Arms Act 1983 is not required where a
person modifies an existing semi automatic firearm to create a military style
semi automatic firearm.