Printable View
No sympathy for the arrested here, but it's laughable they put slug guns in the pic. Surely they are lawful property assuming the accused are over 18? why not throw the table knives in the pic too.
https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/new-z...-matamata.html
I'm more surprised they mentioned correctly that rifles had been cut down to pistols.
Technically, spring powered air rifles are not firearms. You need a firearms licence to buy, sell or own a PCP air rifle.
Interesting question..you can't purchase one under the age of 16, and you need a F/a licence to purchase one between the ages of 16 to 18. The licence requirement on the PCP air rifles arose as a result of 2 deaths from them , including one used to kill a police officer in Auckland.
Regardless of the licensing requirements, 'firearm' has a specific definition under NZ law and no air rifle or pistol (spring, gas, or PCP) falls into that definition. A 'firearm' discharges a projectile 'by the force of explosive'.
Sorry, but I’m pretty sure you are incorrect and that the definition of a firearm in the Arms Act includes “specially dangerous air rifles” or words to that effect.Quote:
Originally Posted by gundoc
Copied from the Arms Act…
firearm—
(a)
means anything from which any shot, bullet, missile, or other projectile can be discharged by force of explosive; and
(b)
includes—
.:..
(iv)
any specially dangerous airgun
Gundoc was correctly making the point that an air rifle is not a firearm regardless of our stupid legislation. Whether you need a FAL for an air rifle is another question.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cigar
Ah, but he said firearm has a specific definition under NZ law, and I was pointing out that under that legal definition some air rifles are firearms.Quote:
Originally Posted by MB
But none of the air rifles in the picture in the article are “firearms”
It takes a brave man to argue minutae with gundoc especially on this subject.
Whether or not the rifles shown in the picture are legally firearms or not is irrelevant. For the purposes of the statistics presented to the public on how many illegal "firearms" are on the loose out there and how bad the situation is, all the items in that picture will be counted as firearms.
And who decides what a”any specially dangerous air gun” is. Who writes this shit, they are lazy or write about stuff they don’t understand or they do it on purpose, to cause confusion and give police unbridled powerQuote:
Originally Posted by Cigar
The spring powered Gamo Swarm Magnum Gen 2 is available in .22 and .177 and produces velocities of 1650 fps in .177 and 1300 fps in .22 yet you don't need a firearms licence to purchase, just proof that you're 18 years or older. Needless to say, that both versions could easily kill someone if hit in a vital area like the think tank. The legislation hasn't caught up with technology.
Gamo always do this to pretend their gun is the fastest. Newbies think faster than 950fts is what they need. Huge mistake!
At 7:55 he admits he is using some 'pba free' pellet at 5.1gns. TOTALLY USELESS. 8gns for .177 is normal and you can go out to 10.3gn (this is a must for longer range)
So what is the real speed of this rifle? probably right on supersonic where you don't want it (massive turbulence for a slug designed for subsonic speeds).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LB7vkypheMk
If airguns are so dangerous, maybe that's what the police should be armed with? It'd also be good for the environment using those ridiculous 177 yellow pellets :)
Well looking at the picture, yes I see three air rifles which by definition (as @gundoc identifed) are not firearms, however, for once I think the headline is correct as there are at least a couple of Shotguns (one cut down to sawn off pistol) and what appears to be three rimfires one of which is definitely pistil sized and a 303 barreled action of some sort, so firearms is 9for the most part) accurate for 70% of what is pictured. And lets be honest, 70% accurate is better than what the media normally manages these days...My main question is where is all the KFC they have been smuggling of late? Or were the cops too late to catch them with that...?
I think it was added to the 1984 legislation as an addendum more recently after a Police officer was shot with a PCP. Up until that point, they were legal if you were over 18 as the Police / powers that be figured they were so expensive that they would be self restricting (the only people who would buy one would be able to get 'real' firearms much more cheaply and easily that they would not bother unless they specifically wanted a PCP....Quote:
Originally Posted by mimms2
https://www.legislation.govt.nz/regu...rous%20airguns.
Link to the legislation re what a 'Specially Dangerous Airgun' is.
A Specially Dangerous Airgun is considered a firearm under NZ Legislation.
as far as i understand well i know this bit I think we all do air riles are not considered a firearm as such (unless of Corse its a pcp) they are considered a deadly weapon though
but i think you can be charged for missuse or crimes with an air rifle under firearms meaning the charge would be the same as if the crime as committed with a "real" firearm like a shotgun for example
correct me if im not correct
I think the intention is to treat them as a firearm rather than call them a firearm. By definition they are not a firearm, but being specified as a Specially Dangerous Airgun means they are treated as such....Quote:
Originally Posted by Savage1
I would point out that the error here is that the "Specially' should be 'Especially'. It does not change the intent or use of the law but it would be nice if legislators could get basic grammar and spelling correct...otherwise it would of bin in vain....sorry Would HAVE BEEN
There is a subtle difference between the two that is missed by most...
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/especially
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/specially
kinetic energy is equal to half of an object's mass multiplied by the velocity squared (or so the nerds chant).Quote:
Originally Posted by mimms2
So at a distance, i think velocity and specifics of a given airgun are relevant. But, up close you would be right, the wound channel would go in a good 3" with a gutless 12ftlbs .177. The difference is that the .22 pcp at 32lbs will to that at 100m.
But i have my doubts an airgun could shoot though an engine block and the pistons???? (re another comment further back) My 45-70 moving at 2000fts with a 400gn copper jacket will splat on a steel plate. There are no airguns traveling at that speed. Ive seen a .177 moving at 1500fts which it the max theoretical possible and it rebounded off a concrete block (formed a 20mm deep cone and fused with the chips instead of disintegrating like normal). But this was done with a 50cal airgun re-barrelled for .177 (just to see). I'm dubious....
Wasn't the barret 50bmg invented entirely for this purpose?
Just quoting the legislation Savage1 linked to:
"Specified pre-charged pneumatic air rifles are declared to be specially dangerous airguns."
Specific pcp's? Is there a list? I've got a 12fpe import from the UK. Would be nice if it wasn't considered a firearm.
correct 100% any pcp regardless of power is conciderd a firearm and requires an fal to own in nzQuote:
Originally Posted by mimms2
pcp pistols however are not and don't require a fal which it pretty funny really