Thread: Here we go folks

A bit wordy but thought I have to make a point. Feel free to paraphrase this.


Hello

I have read, with some dismay , a draft proposal for “shortened” firearms from Alistair Scott MP. I have a number of points to make and questions to ask.

1) What firearms are you trying to make illegal with this legislation? Sawn off shotguns? Home made pistols? Or are you intentionally targeting law abiding firearms owners by creating a pointless law for no reason?

If you did more than five minutes research you would find out that we already have a very well written piece of legislation regarding firearm length that defines what is a pistol and what is a rifle. It is clear, simple and precise. Just what law should be. Sawn off shotguns and home made pistols are already illegal and captured easily within the current law. It states that a firearm must exceed a minimum length of 762mm to legally be considered a rifle. Why 762mm? Because it was 30 inches in imperial measurements and 762mm is 30 inches. Anything shorter than this is considered a pistol and is captured by the B or C categories. There is only one problem with the current law: The judiciary seem to delight in throwing wet bus tickets at offenders. If you really want to make inroads into illegal firearms, a suggestion would be to advise the judiciary that they need to enforce the laws we already have rather than create new ones that will only affect law abiding voters.

2) I struggle to believe that someone who is smart enough to make it into National as a Minister for Parliament could be so misinformed so I have to ask where Alistair got the motivation from? It mentions that this was drawn up in conjunction with Police . Now none of the Police I have spoken to see this as practical, smart or even workable, so what is the Police involvement? Could it be that you are seeking the advice of Mr C Cahill? He may represent the Police association, but honesty is definitely not one of his strong points. He also needs to be reminded that the Police are there to enforce the law. Not as sheriffs that can write their own and make it up as they go.

This proposal is so poorly written that all it will achieve is lawyers fighting over its interpretation. What does “shortened” mean? Are you aware that to fit a suppressor for health and safety (hearing protection) you have to shorten a barrel to thread and recrown it. This would make EVERY suppressed rifle and most repaired rifles into restricted firearms. Bearing in mind almost all are longer than some factory standard rifles that are shorter.

3) The law as it is written will actually require the police to prove a rifle has been shortened. And with many of the LEGALLY owned firearms are you going to reimburse the value of these rifles that the government is attempting to force the public to hand over? And dont reply that this is not the case because section 38C states very clearly that this is exactly the case.
-Every suppressed rifle?
-Every repaired rifle that has had its muzzle or stock worked on? (You draft only specifies shortening – not at which end)
-Every semi auto that has had a part removed to make it A cat compliant at the governments request? We follow a request to remove a flash hider to make a rifle acceptable then you tell us it cannot be taken off?
-Shortening a rifle to fit a youth so it is safe for a young shooter to learn on a rifle that fits them.
-Custom fitting competition firearms like shotguns where stocks are shortened or adjusted to fit the shooter? (Taylored to fit just like a suit)
-A replacement recoil pad that is thinner than the original?
-Do you realise that as it is written, this poorly drafted piece of legislation affects almost ALL firearms in some way.

How will this poorly written piece of legislation make any difference to illegal firearms that are not already included in the current minimum length laws?

What are you trying to achieve with this legislation?

Are you trying to save lives? If yes, then whose?

How many people have died in the last 10 years because a firearm had been shortened? Would this have still happened if it had not been?

If you are trying to stop armed robberies, it is already illegal to rob places with or without a firearm so the people there are already showing a disregard for the law. Do you really think they will pause even for a moment because you wrote another law that they can ignore? Do you think they will care whether there firearm is allowed to be shortened? Or even better, do you really think for a second that they are fit and proper law abiding license holders? This law will have absolutely no affect on the criminals and will ONLY affect law abiding firearms license holders, who will remember that they were ROBBED of their possessions by the government at the next election.

All the resources tied up in this tidying up this poorly drafted literature, and getting it to the stage where it could be read, and the resources used in attempting to implement it could be better used in many many other areas that we as New Zealanders need more; Health – provide more nursing resources; What about the Mental health workers that were to assist police? Or even for boosting police numbers. Considering how expensive this will be to implement, you could actually fund all three for these much more important priorities.

I would suggest that it would be a good idea for this draft to be withdrawn or at least some credible advise sought over the very vague and poorly worded approach.

Thank you