Thread: Richard Lincoln

Originally Posted by Rushy

Having read those two sections I now need to ask what the hell they said. Gobbledygook with a capital Gobble.

74 AOrders relating to military style semi-automatic firearms. The Governor-General may by Order in Council do any or all of the following things:

“(a) describe a kind of component as a pistol grip for the purposes of the definition in section 2 of military style semi-automatic firearm:

Anything used to hold the rifle and simultaneously manipulate the fire controls (i.e. safety mechanism and trigger).


“(b)declare semi-automatic firearms (other than pistols) of a stated make and model to be military style semi-automatic firearms for the purposes of this Act:

Ruger 10/22s, Marlin 795s, <insert plethora of AR-15 / AK platforms and brand names>.


“(c)declare semi-automatic firearms (other than pistols) of a stated description to be military style semi-automatic firearms for the purposes of this Act:

If they don't meet the above criteria then...


“(d)define or describe features of a semi-automatic firearm (other than a pistol) as features of a military style semi-automatic firearm for the purposes of this Act.

... then we'll define it here.


That's my interpretation of those provisions at least.

@Rushy the gobblegook written up there ^^^ is a complicated way of saying that the state don't want citizens to have that "type" of firearm. And it's at their discretion when they choose to make it so.

As for the certain type of firearm, they have kept it fairly broad as to cover most if not any semi-auto out there.

Originally Posted by Sasquatch

@Rushy the gobblegook written up there ^^^ is a complicated way of saying that the state don't want citizens to have that "type" of firearm. And it's at their discretion when they choose to make it so.

As for the certain type of firearm, they have kept it fairly broad as to cover most if not any semi-auto out there.

Ta. Well I have my bad black buggers and no one is gonna change the game plan on me this side of a pine box without me getting all sorts of up in their shit.

So we're heading to the likes of Canada with the horse Gestapo saying what they don't like is prohibited. But things like an M 305 because it looks like grandpa's garand is fine.

professional spooker

I would take it a step further then Canada's regime and say Grandpa's Garand look-a-like is out.

Originally Posted by Sasquatch

I would take it a step further then Canada's regime and say Grandpa's Garand look-a-like is out.

Shit.

professional spooker

That amendment is 6/7 years old now (11 Dec 2012 if I understand it correctly)...

Anyone on here know of a single instance where it has been used ?

Originally Posted by ebf

That amendment is 6/7 years old now (11 Dec 2012 if I understand it correctly)...

Anyone on here know of a single instance where it has been used ?

It's on the books. Just because it hasn't been used yet, doesn't mean it can't or won't be used.

Why else it would be there?

The reason those amendments are there IMHO is as a direct consequence of the legal challenges mentioned earlier in this thread.

It was not unforeseen either... If you keep trying to get around things with fancy arguments, sooner or later the people on the other side of the coin are going to wise up and pass a law that allows them the flexibility to deal with future situations... That's pretty much how I see these amendments.

Now there are of course a variety of responses to something like this. You can either see them as part of an all-encompassing evil agenda, or you could view the fact that they have not been used as a slightly positive thing. Really just depends on different viewpoints.

Don't get me wrong, I'm in favour of challenging gun control restrictions, I just hope that it is done in a way where we end with the changes being more specific and clear, rather than us ending with changes such as these that make the law less precise...

I understand your point of view.

From my perspective it is clear than in 2009, a judge ruled that the NZP behaved in an ultra vires manner. When those that hold power exceed the limits of their power and are adjudged to have done so by the judiciary, whose laws are they sworn to enforce, does that not given one pause for thought?

It's by no means only one side that is capable of "trying to get around things with fancy arguments" (or in the NZP's case 10 years ago, simply just doing it anyway). Whilst I too seek continued partnership with the NZP, they do hold all the cards and in addition have limitless tax payer funds to finance any legal challenges against them.

That's not fair. Laws currently on the books (although perhaps unused), coupled with certain prevailing attitudes from their present and former associative representatives with the MSM as a convenient mouthpiece, it all seems to me to be far too convenient a state of affairs.

The Law Society's rebuttal of Richard Lincoln's application not withstanding.

Wut? Mine's been the same for a long time.