Thread: WE LOST

Originally Posted by 223nut

I'd say yes if you took it out of the same room as the stock

@223nut, not correct at all… the cops will make you pay for your "mistake" as they did to the dude who had a 30 rounds magazine stored separated and for a already endorsed gun (that he is license to have but not at the time) and the cops caught him as he was in possession of a item that can be used on an "E" cat gun…
I hope it give you some light...

Originally Posted by PERRISCICABA

@223nut, not correct at all… the cops will make you pay for your "mistake" as they did to the dude who had a 30 rounds magazine stored separated and for a already endorsed gun (that he is license to have but not at the time) and the cops caught him as he was in possession of a item that can be used on an "E" cat gun…
I hope it give you some light...

Doesn't worry me personally as I only have a cat rifles and no endorsements.

Originally Posted by 223nut

Doesn't worry me personally as I only have a cat rifles and no endorsements.

"BUT", just for example, if you have a Ruger precision rifle and an AR10 the Ruger magazines are 10 rounds (from factory) and they will fit your AR10. So, even though you DONT USE it on your AR10 "A CAT" if the police check "you" and see it/find it they can and "will" make your life miserable as it is "interchangeable"…
Remember, it is just an example… It can be applied to ar15 too as their magazines can be exchanged with other bolt action rifles with similar bottom piece and magazine.

Reducing it to parts by dissembling your 10/22 it doesnt count. But constructing it to be under 762mm and using it that way counts. Intentions count.

Who thought trying to take this idea to court was a worthy idea? The law is pretty clear. How could the court rule otherwise?

Originally Posted by Carlsen Highway

Reducing it to parts by dissembling your 10/22 it doesnt count. But constructing it to be under 762mm and using it that way counts. Intentions count.

Who thought trying to take this idea to court was a worthy idea? The law is pretty clear. How could the court rule otherwise?

Because police released a policy statement saying that MSSA's are measure with the stock open. Then they reversed this policy, after a lot of guns had been put on E cat.

[QUOTE=Carlsen Highway;766446]Reducing it to parts by dissembling your 10/22 it doesnt count. But constructing it to be under 762mm and using it that way counts. Intentions count.

How do you know that?

Don’t forget the NZPHQ fuckery around measuring OAL to the rifling as well.

Originally Posted by dogmatix

Don’t forget the NZPHQ fuckery around measuring OAL to the rifling as well.

So end of butstock to end of rifling? Even if a suppressor is permanently attached?

Originally Posted by dogmatix

Don’t forget the NZPHQ fuckery around measuring OAL to the rifling as well.

Wow that made me go straight out and check !
I'm only just legal on one rifle by 10mm

Originally Posted by akaroa1

Wow that made me go straight out and check !
I'm only just legal on one rifle by 10mm

Yep. It seems police goal was just a fuck you to license holders. It has no effect on criminals.

Originally Posted by Danger Mouse

Yep. It seems police goal was just a fuck you to license holders. It has no effect on criminals.

As usual....

Originally Posted by akaroa1

Wow that made me go straight out and check !
I'm only just legal on one rifle by 10mm

10mm?
Those are rookie numbers! You need to work on those.
My 14.5” barrelled AR is 763mm OAL (to the muzzle) with the carbine stock collapsed. Now we are talking.

Originally Posted by dogmatix

10mm?
Those are rookie numbers! You need to work on those.
My 14.5” barrelled AR is 763mm OAL (to the muzzle) with the carbine stock collapsed. Now we are talking.

At what temperature did you do the measurement? (-:

End of rifling at which end

Yet another example of Police making statements that foolish people believe. The written law is the Holy Grail, anything else that emanates from the mouths of public servants is just the sound of flapping gums, usually backed up by prejudice and ignorance! Our laws are not hard to understand. It is a legal requirement that they mean what they say in plain English. Bureaucratic interpretations are just meaningless hot air, and should always be treated as such. I am surprised that sound legal minds allowed this to get to Court.