Thread: Gun Porn, show off your new toys

Originally Posted by Tahr

I agree with Alonzo (and now Greg and Brads). There seems to be some sort of morbid curiosity about killing people here, and how to do it effectively. Its not new. It makes me sick.

Why do I read it? Because without reading it, I can't fight it, and it gives me an insight into just how Americanised we are becoming. Its bullshit.

Its not just here either, if you watch "Hunting Aotearoa " their gun safety dude / slot is always taking about looking after your "weapon" or "weapon system"

Its a bloody rifle, A tank is a weapon system FFS

Originally Posted by Kiwi Greg

So would I but unless I got a permit to change it into my name I would be breaking the law even touching it.....

SAD KiwiGreg but true.

Originally Posted by Kiwi Greg

So would I but unless I got a permit to change it into my name I would be breaking the law even touching it.....

Yet you can go into most gun shops, gun shows or auctions and fiddle with any e-cat stuff you like and nobody cares.

A rifle fits the English definition of a 'weapon', just because you don't like it doesn't make it wrong.

I really couldn't care less what people call them, I have a safe full of weapons, I kill and destroy all sorts with them.

Originally Posted by systolic

Yet you can go into most gun shops, gun shows or auctions and fiddle with any e-cat stuff you like and nobody cares.

That may be the case but you are still breaking the law by touching it.....does anyone care, who knows, would anyone do anything about it, who knows, still breaking the law though, a few pics on Face ache etc & who knows...

I'm not prepared to put my FAL or dealers licence on it though, especially if its my E-Cat in question.

Technically, pistols are governed under the same rule. So technically pistol clubs break the law, but police don't recognise it. Why it is any different for MSSA's who knows. I was told it is because pistols can only be shot at an approved range, so police can keep a closer eye on you.

Originally Posted by Beavis

Technically, pistols are governed under the same rule. So technically pistol clubs break the law, but police don't recognise it. Why it is any different for MSSA's who knows. I was told it is because pistols can only be shot at an approved range, so police can keep a closer eye on you.

My understanding is you can legally use a pistol supervised at an approved range without a licence, you cannot do the same with an E-Cat (MSSA)

Where as on a pistol range you can fill your boots as long as you're under the direct supervision of the owner and/or range officer

Originally Posted by Kiwi Greg

My understanding is you can legally use a pistol supervised at an approved range without a licence, you cannot do the same with an E-Cat (MSSA)

To even touch a MSSA one needs to be a P2P.

Arms Act 1983 No 44 (as at 01 January 2016), Public Act Contents – New Zealand Legislation

44 Selling or supplying pistol, military style semi-automatic firearm, or restricted weapon to person who does not hold permit to import or to procure
(1)Every person commits an offence and is liable on conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 years or to a fine not exceeding $4,000 or to both who sells or supplies a pistol, military style semi-automatic firearm, or restricted weapon to any person other than a person who is authorised—
(a)by a permit issued for the purposes of section 16(1) to bring or cause to be brought or sent into New Zealand that pistol, military style semi-automatic firearm, or restricted weapon; or
(b)by a permit issued under section 35 to procure that pistol, military style semi-automatic firearm, or restricted weapon.

Originally Posted by Kiwi Greg

My understanding is you can legally use a pistol supervised at an approved range without a licence, you cannot do the same with an E-Cat (MSSA)

Legally pistols fall under the same usage and possession rules as an MSSA, if you read the section of the act quoted by Ryan.

Originally Posted by Beavis

Legally pistols fall under the same usage and possession rules as an MSSA, if you read the section of the act quoted by Ryan.

Or the whole section quoted by Ryan.

Arms Act 1983 No 44 (as at 01 January 2016), Public Act 44 Selling or supplying pistol, military style semi-automatic firearm, or restricted weapon to person who does not hold permit to import or to procure – New Zealand Legislation

44 Selling or supplying pistol, military style semi-automatic firearm, or restricted weapon to person who does not hold permit to import or to procure



(1)

Every person commits an offence and is liable on conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 years or to a fine not exceeding $4,000 or to both who sells or supplies a pistol, military style semi-automatic firearm, or restricted weapon to any person other than a person who is authorised—

(a)
by a permit issued for the purposes of section 16(1) to bring or cause to be brought or sent into New Zealand that pistol, military style semi-automatic firearm, or restricted weapon; or


(b)
by a permit issued under section 35 to procure that pistol, military style semi-automatic firearm, or restricted weapon.



(2)

In any prosecution for an offence against subsection (1) in which it is proved that the defendant sold or supplied a pistol or a military style semi-automatic firearm or a restricted weapon to any person, the burden of proving that that person was the holder of—

(a)
a permit which was issued for the purposes of section 16(1) and which authorised that person to bring or cause to be brought or sent into New Zealand that pistol, military style semi-automatic firearm, or restricted weapon; or


(b)
a permit which was issued under section 35 and which authorised that person to procure that pistol, military style semi-automatic firearm, or restricted weapon,—


shall lie on the defendant.


(3)

It is a good defence to a prosecution for an offence against subsection (1) if the defendant proves, in the case of a prosecution relating to the supply of a pistol to any person,—

(a)
that the pistol was supplied to that person for use both—

(i)
on the range of an incorporated pistol shooting club for the time being recognised by the Commissioner for the purposes of section 29; and


(ii)
under the immediate supervision of the holder of a firearms licence bearing an endorsement permitting that person to have possession of that pistol or a pistol of that kind; and


(b)
that at all times while that person was in possession of the pistol he was both on such a range and under the immediate supervision of the holder of such a firearms licence.



(4)

A defendant may, in the case of a prosecution relating to the sale or supply of a pistol, military style semi-automatic firearm, or restricted weapon to any person, discharge the burden of proof placed on him by subsection (2) by proving that he took reasonable steps to ascertain whether that person was the holder of a permit of the kind described in paragraph (a) or paragraph (b) of subsection (1).


Of course I might be wrong

Originally Posted by Kiwi Greg

Or the whole section quoted by Ryan.

Arms Act 1983 No 44 (as at 01 January 2016), Public Act 44 Selling or supplying pistol, military style semi-automatic firearm, or restricted weapon to person who does not hold permit to import or to procure – New Zealand Legislation

44 Selling or supplying pistol, military style semi-automatic firearm, or restricted weapon to person who does not hold permit to import or to procure



(1)

Every person commits an offence and is liable on conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 years or to a fine not exceeding $4,000 or to both who sells or supplies a pistol, military style semi-automatic firearm, or restricted weapon to any person other than a person who is authorised—

(a)
by a permit issued for the purposes of section 16(1) to bring or cause to be brought or sent into New Zealand that pistol, military style semi-automatic firearm, or restricted weapon; or


(b)
by a permit issued under section 35 to procure that pistol, military style semi-automatic firearm, or restricted weapon.



(2)

In any prosecution for an offence against subsection (1) in which it is proved that the defendant sold or supplied a pistol or a military style semi-automatic firearm or a restricted weapon to any person, the burden of proving that that person was the holder of—

(a)
a permit which was issued for the purposes of section 16(1) and which authorised that person to bring or cause to be brought or sent into New Zealand that pistol, military style semi-automatic firearm, or restricted weapon; or


(b)
a permit which was issued under section 35 and which authorised that person to procure that pistol, military style semi-automatic firearm, or restricted weapon,—


shall lie on the defendant.


(3)

It is a good defence to a prosecution for an offence against subsection (1) if the defendant proves, in the case of a prosecution relating to the supply of a pistol to any person,—

(a)
that the pistol was supplied to that person for use both—

(i)
on the range of an incorporated pistol shooting club for the time being recognised by the Commissioner for the purposes of section 29; and


(ii)
under the immediate supervision of the holder of a firearms licence bearing an endorsement permitting that person to have possession of that pistol or a pistol of that kind; and


(b)
that at all times while that person was in possession of the pistol he was both on such a range and under the immediate supervision of the holder of such a firearms licence.



(4)

A defendant may, in the case of a prosecution relating to the sale or supply of a pistol, military style semi-automatic firearm, or restricted weapon to any person, discharge the burden of proof placed on him by subsection (2) by proving that he took reasonable steps to ascertain whether that person was the holder of a permit of the kind described in paragraph (a) or paragraph (b) of subsection (1).


Of course I might be wrong

Nope its even in the MOU between PistolNZ and Police
Letter of Agreement between the New Zealand Pistol Association and the New Zealand Police

Originally Posted by gimp

You can say porno here

Not on his work computer he cant

True. I asked that question before and only got the top bit.

Yeah to clarify, "I'd love to have a go with that" was an expression rather than a proclamation I'd be prepared to break to the law to do so. I engaged Nic Taylor and also took the then Inspector to the IPCA for predetermining Parliament's intentions with proposed firearms legislation amendments; he was told to act in accordance with the legislation as it stood not what it might be in the future. Couple of guys on here even kicked in some $ in to help - was very grateful for that as a family of 5. As an E-Cat holder/responsible firearms owner I do not advocate breaking the law. But most of you knew that already.