Thread: ARMS OFFICE NEWSLETTER WAIKATO DISTRICT

Originally Posted by National Shooters Assoc

THE FOLLOWING LETTER HAS BEEN SENT TO WAIKATO ARMS OFFICE


Dear Richard

We have recently had drawn to our attention a newsletter published by the Waikato Arms Office. It appears to follow a recent trend of police trying to "extend the provisions of the Arms Act" which is a matter that your superiors at PNHQ now formally deny (via crown law.)

You have said in that newsletter: "To get an E endorsement for an MSSA - you must provide good reason such as proof of being a professional 'culler', or of belonging to a club/organization that participates in regular shooting events with MSSA guns."

We should like to point out that to obtain an endorsement permitting possession of an MSSA the applicant for the endorsement needs to be considered "fit and proper." There are no criteria set down in the Act for the fit and proper test. There is no legislative authority for police to prescribe what amounts to a lawful, sufficient and proper reason and therefore, by proxy, a fit and proper criteria. In the Hansard from 1992, the Minister of Police citied that "bona fide hunters" (without any further qualification) were considered to be eligible to possess MSSAs. It is further noted that police do not have legislative authority to over-ride s50 of the Arms Act. A person who possesses a MSSA is entitled to do so for any lawful, sufficient and proper reason. Such a reason is a matter of law; not a matter of police opinion. It is not unlawful for any person to use an MSSA in any situation where he or she might otherwise use a non-endorsable firearm. It is also noted that police are not entitled to impose blanket policies circumscribing their discretion under s30B of the Arms Act (see PSI v COP 1992.)

We also find your complaining about multiple endorsements to be somewhat odd. It is clearly contemplated in the fees schedule of the Arms Regulations that a person may apply for multiple endorsements. We believe that the confusion arises due to the flawed police system of issuing 'alphabetic category endorsements' ; we take this opportunity to clarify:

There is no such thing as an alphabetic endorsement; an endorsement relates to a gun; not a letter of the alphabet.
There is no fee for an endorsement - the fee is for the application.
The application relates to one or more specific firearms (which attract an endorsement) on the basis of the firearms legal category: i.e pistol, RW, MSSA.
So for example a person who wants to possess three pistols and four MSSAs would apply for:
3 pistol endorsements @$200
4 MSSA endorsements @200
Total $400.00

Once you understand the scheme of the Arms Act (as opposed to the scheme of the police alphabet) your complaints about multiple endorsement applications ought to be soothed.

Would you be good enough to publish a correction to your newsletter; that will mean that NSA will not have to escalate the matter further.

Kind Regards
National Shooters Association

The Police are the ones that administer that Arms Act, So if the definition of fit and proper isn't defined in legislation or defined in case law then what do you expect the Police to do? It is in fact in the legislation that it is up to the opinion of a commissioned Officer in the Police to decide whether a person is fit and proper to be issued a licence, so common sense would say that this applies to any endorsement within that licence.

Are you implying that nobody needs a licence to possess a firearm if it's for hunting or sports shooting? Or is that not a lawful? Are you saying that a normal FAL allows me to use MSSAs for shooting tin cans because I can lawfully use a A Cat firearm for it? So I can lawfully possess a E Cat firearm?! From what you're implying a FAL wouldn't be needed by anyone.

Police administer the Arms Act so it is up to their opinion, when not stated in law, whether it is lawful or not but the judge has the final say, if Police couldn't use their opinion then how much of the many acts (Crimes, Misuse of Drugs etc) could they really enforce?!

Stop playing word games with the Arms Act, some of those points are just silly.