Thread: a cat endorsed onto your e cat

Originally Posted by Spanners

I fail to see where the current a b e endorsement doesn't work and now each firearm is endorsed as such
What that means is those that have any endorsement or want to pursue that line of firearm collection or sport is now looking at $200 per gun.
So eg: if you have 1/2 dozen E cat guns and want to go overseas for 2 months and move them to a mates for storage then you're looking at $2500 to secure your guns and get them back.
And all because some jumped up prick is on a crusade 'on behalf of us all'
Quite frankly I'm sick to death of the cunt, hes not doing and masses and favors but the court bullshit is just cementing things in place for no progression for the real masses. Minority ideals and wants
It's little wonder why the NSA doesn't get invited to meetings and the going ons behind the scenes.
The rubbishing of Colfo is constantly is appalling where end of the day, they are working with and making head way with the Police, the complete opposite of NSA

Time to speak out I think and condemn a self appointed party that's acting on OUR behalf

Sure as hell don't speak for me, and judging by the last few range shoots I've done, noone else there either.

You can have your own opinion but when you nothing and everyone else brings it up and agrees with you, maybe you're not far off the mark

COLFO have never acheived anything as far as Im concerned. They are the consumate police lap dog attending meetings so that the police can say they have consulted the firearms community. To top it off they rob members of associate organisations for fees to 'fight the battle' but then dont have the balls to do anything other than be a police HQ yes man

Originally Posted by Digit

COLFO have never acheived anything as far as Im concerned. They are the consumate police lap dog attending meetings so that the police can say they have consulted the firearms community. To top it off they rob members of associate organisations for fees to 'fight the battle' but then dont have the balls to do anything other than be a police HQ yes man

Maybe as you see it or have been lead to believe by the rantings of a few antis, but as was said early in the piece by a few of the idiots, 'you're either with or against us'
If you honestly think we're going to gain ANYTHING out of all this shit, you are truly mistaken and have been sucked into the dribble and been brainwashed.

Originally Posted by ishoot10s

Beavis I think it comes down to what each AO is prepared to do, how they interpret the Act and importantly how they see you (judge your character). They used to have some latitude I think, and only certain cases or requests had to be referred to the Manager Licensing and Vetting. I've always treated my AO's with respect, never made demands or pointed out facts of Law. I simply make polite requests and comply with their instructions. Recently I towed one's vehicle out of a bog at a range day. I haven't called in that favour and I never would. But those days of them having the latitude to be accommodating are dwindling, and this recent case is a classic example.

How fit and proper can you get? I'd like it to be consistent and black and white. I'm a straight up person and don't think you should have to suck up to somebody and bow down to their opinion to get something you aren't expressly forbidden from having. In case people have forgotten, an arms officer is a public servant. Our collective taxes help pay their wages. They are there to do a job. You shouldn't need to be in an old boys club, or "the right" district to get a piece of paper.

And in case your wondering I get on fine with the local AO. We have wildly differing opinions on firearm ownership, but we have a good working relationship.

Originally Posted by Spanners

Maybe as you see it or have been lead to believe by the rantings of a few antis, but as was said early in the piece by a few of the idiots, 'you're either with or against us'
If you honestly think we're going to gain ANYTHING out of all this shit, you are truly mistaken and have been sucked into the dribble and been brainwashed.

And here I was thinking you would present a legitimate argument for the existence of COLFO.

In the meantime you have been allowed to import, possess and sell A Cat ARs entirely off the back of the legal out come from a NSA court case. A bit 2 faced.

Just before anyone gets too carried away.

Keep in mind that the whole principle of a single endorsement for a single firearm did not arise from anything NSA or Richard Lincoln has done. This proposition of law came up in and was settled in the case of Jenner v Police. It was the crown (aka the police) who argued this point successfully. The Jenner decision was 2009 and predates the NSA or any legal action taken by Richard Lincoln.

For those who are asked about "slapping a normal mag into there mini 14." Don't do it. That would be an offence - unless you first obtain an endorsement.

For those who wonder what difference it makes: Alphabet v Endorsement. After listening to the case presented to him all day, Panckhurst J was completely misled and only in the final minutes of the hearing did he realise that an endorsement is not a general authorisation to possess a category of firearm. He was misled, as many here have been, by the alphabetic categorisation invented by police. Once anything is categorised in this way, it presumes the licence, permit, whatever, applies to the category. Everyone automatically draws a comparison with a drivers licence.. so if you have "class 2" you can drive any class 2 vehicle. But that is not how firearms endorsements work and civilian gun owners ought not to be misled by a confusing and misconceived police categorization system. So best to stop thinking, talking and acting in that language. Lets all get it right and not create more confusion.




The position is stated by the National Manager of Operations for Police in the narrative copied from a recent email:
================================================== ====================================

I have considered Mr Richard Lincoln’s application under s 30A of the Arms Act 1983 for an endorsement permitting him to possess the H&K SL8 .223 serial number [redacted] (the Specified Firearm), which while not currently a military style semi-automatic firearm, Mr Lincoln seeks to convert into a military style semi-automatic firearm.

I am satisfied that the Applicant is over the age of 18 years, the holder of a firearms licence and a fit and proper person to be in possession of the Specified Firearm as a military style semi-automatic firearm (the MSSA) and, in accordance with s 30B of the Arms Act 1983, have decided to make the endorsement in respect of the MSSA subject to the following conditions.

Pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Commissioner of Police, I direct that the following conditions be imposed on the endorsement in accordance with s 33A(2) of the Arms Act 1983:

The endorsement holder may not take possession of the MSSA or any other MSSA for which he obtains a specific endorsement until he has first installed the required security and had that security inspected and approved by Police. The endorsement holder should make arrangements with his local arms office for inspection.

The endorsement holder must advise his local arms office by email within 24 hours of taking possession of the above specified MSSA.

The endorsement holder must bring the MSSA into his local arms office for inspection within 21 days of taking possession of the MSSA. If, on inspection, the arms officer deems it necessary, the endorsement holder will be required to submit the MSSA to the Police armourer for testing and/or examination in order to determine its safety.

The endorsement holder has been given approval to have the required security for the MSSA at the premises of [redacted] at [address to be inserted by arms officer]. It is a condition of this endorsement that the endorsement holder have 24 hour access seven days per week to his MSSA security installed there.


Barry Taylor
National Manager: Operations

Originally Posted by Digit

And here I was thinking you would present a legitimate argument for the existence of COLFO.

In the meantime you have been allowed to import, possess and sell A Cat ARs entirely off the back of the legal out come from a NSA court case. A bit 2 faced.

I could try, but would I actually get anywhere with someone that has a different opinion?
As I said I'm not a Colfo supporter
It's like religion or politics.. You can never win

BTW I had A cat ARs, imported them and sold them long before any if this shit came about, so to be honest nothing has changed and if anything it has created more hoops to jump through.

Ok, well I'd have to admit that it probably makes a huge difference that at least one of our AO's is active in the sport. If you're stuck with an AO that is not a participant, and you have differences of opinion on Firearms related things, then that probably goes some way towards influencing any decision they make for you. That's unfortunate. But I don't believe a blanket change to screw everyone down to the letter of the law is the answer to a level playing field. I believe that will simply make it harder for all of us to enjoy shooting sports.

Originally Posted by Digit

Yes, previously there was inconsistancies from district to district depending on how involved your AO was with the sport and the enjoyment gun ownership.

I think you're mistaken Digit. Local arms officers have never had the delegated power to issue endorsements. These always went via PNHQ / JG.

Originally Posted by NSA

I think you're mistaken Digit. Local arms officers have never had the delegated power to issue endorsements. These always went via PNHQ / JG.

My AO has always pointed out that it is up to HQ what permits etc he is allowed to do

Originally Posted by NSA

I think you're mistaken Digit. Local arms officers have never had the delegated power to issue endorsements. These always went via PNHQ / JG.

It's more of a generic statement about my impressions of AOs around the NZ and the advice they offer to firearms owners. I've had AOs refuse to sign a mail order form for an A cat AR and others pass judgement that was very negative. I could draw a map of districts in NZ where it is more beneficial to live as a firearms owner.
I believe it is more beneficial to a firearm owner to live in a 'Positive' district. I may be wrong but think of some of them as the gate keeper to HQ.

Originally Posted by Digit

It's more of a generic statement about my impressions of AOs around the NZ and the advice they offer to firearms owners. I've had AOs refuse to sign a mail order form for an A cat AR and others pass judgement that was very negative. I could draw a map of districts in NZ where it is more beneficial to live as a firearms owner.
I believe it is more beneficial to a firearm owner to live in a 'Positive' district. I may be wrong but think of some of them as the gate keeper to HQ.

Very true I think... but given that AOs do not determine the outcome of endorsement applications, their inherent beliefs do not influence those outcomes. (That was the point in question.)

I think it would be naive to think AOs don't influence HQ outcomes. I'd rather have an AO backing me than one against.

Originally Posted by Digit

I think it would be naive to think AOs don't influence HQ outcomes. I'd rather have an AO backing me than one against.

Yes... Happys example is just that. 'Working' with those that you need to deal with
Walk in there guns blazing and demanding and you'll get fucked around
My local AO is top notch.

Really, Really, Stupid question time:

Can someone please confirm:

A) It seems to me that some people out there have applied for and been granted a general MSSA Endorsement (i.e. the initial endorsement application wasn't made in respect of any particular MSSA). These people then just get a permit to procure when they want to acquire their first or additional MSSA's? When they sell their MSSA's, the general endorsement doesn't lapse?

B) It seems some other people apply for an MSSA endorsement in respect of one particular MSSA - the endorsement is then issued with the condition that it is only to apply to that MSSA. If the MSSA goes, so does the endorsement? These guys can't procure additional MSSA's by virtue of the Permit to Procure process - they have to start from scratch and get another MSSA endorsement?

Is that what's happening?

Originally Posted by murky

Really, Really, Stupid question time:

Can someone please confirm:

A) It seems to me that some people out there have applied for and been granted a general MSSA Endorsement (i.e. the initial endorsement application wasn't made in respect of any particular MSSA). These people then just get a permit to procure when they want to acquire their first or additional MSSA's? When they sell their MSSA's, the general endorsement doesn't lapse?

B) It seems some other people apply for an MSSA endorsement in respect of one particular MSSA - the endorsement is then issued with the condition that it is only to apply to that MSSA. If the MSSA goes, so does the endorsement? These guys can't procure additional MSSA's by virtue of the Permit to Procure process - they have to start from scratch and get another MSSA endorsement?

Is that what's happening?

Yep.