Thread: ARMS OFFICE NEWSLETTER WAIKATO DISTRICT

"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."

Sweet reply......as in 'thumb hole stocks', the police 'do not' make the law, their job is to enforce it.......im starting to dig my trench now!!!!!!!

I think the police are in between a rock and a hard place. I mean to me in some ways getting a cat e cause its shinny and pretty and goes bang bang fast, seems sufficient....



Un-fortunately many other in-secure ppl seem to fill their underpants if they see you with a long black case let alone the actual gun.......yet I and most everyone else in here has undergone a police check to prove Im a fit and proper to hold and use one.

I really wonder if its a case of over-sensitivity...

Of course sooner or later we'll see an incident and the Pollies and then the police will cop it and then we will



regards

When i read the opening post i thought well there goes any chance of me ever having a rattle gun.(because there is no way i could attend enough club shoots same as pistols)

But there is hope it would seem

Sent from my GT-S5360T using Tapatalk 2

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.

The main point to me was the bit about being a club member or providing proof of being a professional culler.. The reply was correct to state that those two bits there are not in
any documentation. So that's someone's personal spin on it. To also say if you cant meet those requirements don't bother applying well that hardly a how can we help you today welcome is it ?
You can gain E Cat if you meet the security requirements, the fit and proper person requirements etc. You don't have to be a club member or professional culler at all.

I m happy someone is trying to clear that bit up as its fairly important.. I was starting to think Hmmmm well this is getting harder by the minute same as VC...

Misinterpretation can cost people their rights , things need to be clear and cut and dried.

Happy, I kinda looked sideways at the point of being a pro culler too, I guess this is a letter from one arms officer in one part of the country ( as possibly their view spun into it. )
But reading other people's comments the arms act in itself hasn't changed ( yet )

What would be neat, is if the police website in their firearms category had a Q & A section where we as joe blogs can submit a question or seek clarification and get a "National Response" so there is no confusion.

Just my 2 cents worth.

I can see people's point buy an A class today all legit then next day it's an E and your behind the ball.

Originally Posted by Savage1

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.

The police will interpret the law to suit themselves... the only defence we have to that is to challenge it. That takes the form of an appeal directly to the police pointing out the law, which is created for us as well not just for them... and failing common sense being used in interpretation by them, directing that challenge to the court for decision binding on the police.

What sort of bullshit is the term "word games".... the law is all about words and their interpretation... we have the protection of the law and are entitled to insist that the police comply with the words of the law... a disagreement as to the meaning is settled by the court if it needs to get that far...

Compliance with any officials interpretation of the law without question, does not mean that you are complying with the law, and it certainly does not mean that they are....

For the record, user National Shooters Assoc are you Richard Lincoln, or is this user someone else representing the NSA ?

Me off to Aussie now be interesting to see how downhill this goes in a week or so he he The response from NSA was ok IMO anyway possibly a bit long but Ok

Cheers. Happy

Originally Posted by ebf

For the record, user National Shooters Assoc are you Richard Lincoln, or is this user someone else representing the NSA ?

ebf - Please read Ryan's post above.

NSA's post above is bloody helpful for people with "A" cat semi's like myself and the thousands of others in this boat, put it bluntly if it wasn't for them we wouldn't be enjoying using them.

300winmag, Ryan's post asked people to "please don't let this thread descend into a volley of name calling, accusations and general abuse."

I am trying to establish in the user "National Shooters Assoc" is in fact Richard Lincoln or not. He has previously been banned from this forum for abusive behaviour under the username "krewzr". If it is Richard, then I am quite happy for him to join under such a public username, since whatever he says will be linked directly to his "organisation"

Thats crap... you don't need to raise the issue if you follow your own logic...

Originally Posted by National Shooters Assoc

It is our understanding that the police executive agrees with us that police may not prescribe lawful sufficient and proper purposes to use firearms (including MSSAs) and refuse endorsements when the applicant's reasons for wanting a firearm fall outside that prescription.

Interesting statement this... wonder if the police executive would agree that that they agree with the NSA Maybe best left for them to comment rather than putting words in their mouth ?

Why don't you stop shit stirring...

You might not agree with everything the likes of the NSA stand for ... but frankly when people from the roughly the same side of an issue, want to continually chip away at others who actually try to do something about the likes of the police over-extending their authority.... then frankly you are just wrong..

Well he's not about to put his hand up is he, especially after all the other crap that went on.
Anyway I guess if a letter bearing the NSA letterhead gets sent to the coppers the Brains Trust will know about it of which he would be a member.
It's very well written and seems to be factually correct.

As an aside I was in the Manukau Arms office the other day getting an import permit sorted when I popped the question about getting an "E"
The Arms Officer couldn't have been more helpful, seemed bloody easy to get but I might have been a tad to trusting, I'll wait and see what comes out of the NSA's legal stoush. The import permit was sorted on the spot, walked out 5mins later happy as Larry.

I loved his posts on both sites but shit there's some uptight gun owners out there.