Thread: Here we go folks

Originally Posted by Beetroot

Yes I think so, not that I know (or care) what Trumps mistake was.

From what I have read it seems clear the intent was to tackle those who shorten a firearm for the sole purpose of making it easily concealable for use in less than lawful purposes.
Not to criminalize me for shortening my 17hmr 1mm when I had the barrel threaded.
I think the intent was an honest one, as had the MP concerned been of the gun grabbing ilk he would've started with restrictions based on semi auto or similar as a first step with the intention of taking it further from there.

I don't believe he realized how big of an impact only a few words could have on such a matter.
You may think that a politician/MP/professional would know the importance of correct wording but honestly they don't have a clue, that's why it was put out for public consultation as a draft and for a final would've been looked over by a lawyer/solicitor to see if the words he had written actually meant what he thought in legal speak.

You would not believe the things Real Estate agents write as clauses in Sale and Purchase agreements, legal documents and expect people to sign.
I have had many S & P agreements that I was expected to sign given to my lawyer to check over and he said were just a load of shit, would never hold up in court, were flat out wrong, or had been explained to me (by an agent) so far from what was legally written it's was border line illegal.
These were written by "Professionals" whose bread and butter is selling house so you would expect them to understand how a Sales and Purchase agreement works and the implications they can have if it all goes tits up.

So yes, I think the man had the best of intentions and can see how this could have been an honest oversight.

You know, I'd totally agree with that if it weren't already illegal for them to:

A. Illegally possess a firearm in the first instance.
B. Commit a further offense by cutting the firearm down.

He's under the impression that the max time punishable for having a pistol is less than a A category pistol, but I'll explain again why he's wrong.


Section 45: Carrying or possession of firearms, airguns, PISTOLS (added emphasis), restricted weapons, or explosives, except for lawful, proper, and sufficient purpose.
Punishable by: Imprisonment for a term not exceeding 4 years or to a fine not exceeding $5,000 or to both.

Section 50: Unlawful possession of pistol, military style semi-automatic firearm, or restricted weapon.
Punishable by: Imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 years or to a fine not exceeding $4,000 or to both.

These are separate offenses and the police have the option of charging someone for both in the case of a pistol as well as an MSSA or restricted weapon.

However the issue is the police only pursue the latter charge instead of the two for their own reasons (Probably more work) and even if they did, they'd not get jail time for those offenses and even if by some miracle that they did, it'd be served concurrently anyway, so it wouldn't make any difference apart from what's on their criminal record.