Thread: Free E's ..... we'll almost

I have my AO popping around on Sunday to do my Vetting.

So E-cat safe fully installed and bottle of Baileys for partner to keep her in a good mood for her interview

That women sounds fuckn scary

Originally Posted by dogmatix

Unfortunately, some ranges will be enforcing the rule from 11 June onwards. I.e. won't allow you to let your mates shoot your E-Cat MSSA under your supervision.
Mind you, those ranges are anti semis anyway, so not a far extension of that old fart attitude.

The reasoning is quite convoluted but it is because there are three seperate sections in law which deal with supplying an MSSA

CIV-2012-409-000866 [2013] NZHC 1813

JUDGMENT OF PANCKHURST J

[68] Faced with the present wording of s 22(2)(a) Ms Coleman conceded that the immediate supervision defence is available in relation to the use of a MSSA, at least in the context of a prosecution against the unlicensed person under s 20. Clearly that concession was appropriate.

[69] However, counsel drew attention to two other offence sections under which charges could be laid. Section 44(1) defines the offence of supplying a MSSA (or a pistol or a restricted weapon) to anyone other than a person who is authorised to receive it by virtue of a permit to import, or a permit to procure. Interestingly, s 44(3) provides a defence where the supply was by a pistol licence holder at a recognised pistol shooting club range and the supplier provided immediate supervision over the pistol while it is in the possession of the other person i.e. the same defence as was contained in the 2005 Bill in relation to possession of a pistol contrary to s 20 of the Act.

[70] Supply is a word of broad meaning. It is apt to cover relinquishing possession of a MSSA even temporarily for the purpose of firearm instruction by the supplier. Potentially, therefore, even in an immediate supervision context the supplier of a MSSA could be charged under s 44, albeit the person receiving instruction may well have a defence under s 22(2)(a).


[71] In addition, s 50(1) creates the offence of unlawful possession of a MSSA by a person not authorised or permitted to do so, for example because they do not hold an E endorsement and a permit to procure. Again, the same immediate supervision defence is available but only in relation to a pistol: see s 50(5). Hence, there is potential for someone placed in possession of a MSSA, but under immediate supervision, to be charged under this section, instead of under s 20 where an immediate supervision defence would be available.
[72] In short, ss 20(1) on the one hand, and 44(1) and 50(1) on the other are in conflict with reference to the availability of an immediate supervision defence in relation to the possession, and supply, of a MSSA. The existence of this conflict further supports the contention that s 22(2)(a) contains a drafting error which, regrettably, was not rectified as proposed in the 2005 Bill.


[73] Mr Lincoln sought a declaration confirming that, were he to supply a MSSA to another for firearm instruction and provide immediate supervision of that person, he would not commit an offence. The value of a declaration confirming that particular conduct is not criminal is well recognised:26
Where ... a party brings proceedings before the Courts relating to matters involving statutory construction ... because he wants to avoid violating the law and in order to ascertain and observe the law, the Court should surely be much more sympathetic towards granting declaratory relief if convenient.
In this instance, however, the reverse is the case. For the reasons given the applicant may be prosecuted under s 44(1) were he to supply a MSSA to someone for the purpose of safety instruction under his supervision.
[74] For these reasons, and in the exercise of my discretion, I decline to grant relief.

Remember that there is no staute of limitations in the Arms Act so charges could be laid at any time in the future if Police should decide to do so - present 'policy' not to prosecute can be changed at any time and Police personnel do change ...

Exactly why we should all apply for specific endorsements and P2Ps between endorsed license holders by the hundreds or even thousands each week.
To prevent us being in breach of the Act and to give Police HQ a mountain of paperwork to process.

Originally Posted by Southern Man

Can just use the particular MSSA that the endorsement give syou 'permission' to possess and no other. A drafting error in the law provides no defence to the supply of an MSSA to any person who does not have an endorsement for that particualr and exact MSSA and a Permit to Procure specificaly that one.

A range officer is even technically unable to even touch any MSSA except the ones for which they have the specific endorsement and permit to procure.

There is much delight in official circles at this 'error' and no plans to repair the drafting error.

Speaking to an arms officer, he bought up this subject where, his words, there are a "bunch of "pedantic" people in your sport".

People have gone to see him about people using someone elses E cat gun, said arms officer didnt want to know. he said you are at a range, its controlled, have some bloody fun. The law is a nonsense.


I wholeheartedly agree with him

Then openly let people shoot your E cat if you have one. Put it on youtube if you want. I wont be taking that risk thats for sure.

Originally Posted by Towely

Then openly let people shoot your E cat if you have one. Put it on youtube if you want. I wont be taking that risk thats for sure.

Why on earth would I want to do that?

I agree with him. That doesnt mean at all that I let anyone shoot any E cat firearms that I might or might not own. Do I have an E cat, that would be no ones business but mine.

And the police

I think that's a big part of the problem though. Mr AO says it's sweet, you and you mate go have some fun down at the range, PC plod clamps you in irons. "B-but the AO said it w-was ok!" you cry, as mr AO coldly turns his back on you, and PC plod drags you screaming to an organic sandal weaving facility for "re-education".

Originally Posted by AzumitH

I think that's a big part of the problem though. Mr AO says it's sweet, you and you mate go have some fun down at the range, PC plod clamps you in irons. "B-but the AO said it w-was ok!" you cry, as mr AO coldly turns his back on you, and PC plod drags you screaming to an organic sandal weaving facility for "re-education".

Yep thats a possibility too.

So your AO is choosing not to enforce quite serious regulatory infingements?

44 Selling or supplying pistol, military style semi-automatic firearm, or restricted weapon to person who does not hold permit to import or to procure
(1) Every person commits an offence and is liable on conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 years or to a fine not exceeding $4,000 or to both who sells or supplies a pistol, military style semi-automatic firearm, or restricted weapon to any person other than a person who is authorised—

(a) by a permit issued for the purposes of section 16(1) to bring or cause to be brought or sent into New Zealand that pistol, military style semi-automatic firearm, or restricted weapon; or

(b) by a permit issued under section 35 to procure that pistol, military style semi-automatic firearm, or restricted weapon.

50 Unlawful possession of pistol, military style semi-automatic firearm, or restricted weapon
(1) Every person commits an offence and is liable on conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 years or to a fine not exceeding $4,000 or to both who—

(a) is in possession of a pistol and is not a person authorised or permitted, expressly or by implication, by or pursuant to this Act, to be in possession of that pistol; or

(b) is in possession of a restricted weapon and is not a person authorised or permitted, expressly or by implication, by or pursuant to this Act, to be in possession of that restricted weapon:

(c) is in possession of a military style semi-automatic firearm and is not a person authorised or permitted, expressly or by implication, by or pursuant to this Act, to be in possession of that military style semi-automatic firearm.

I am guessing National Police HQ would be very interested in that!

Originally Posted by Southern Man

So your AO is choosing not to enforce quite serious regulatory infingements?

44 Selling or supplying pistol, military style semi-automatic firearm, or restricted weapon to person who does not hold permit to import or to procure
(1) Every person commits an offence and is liable on conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 years or to a fine not exceeding $4,000 or to both who sells or supplies a pistol, military style semi-automatic firearm, or restricted weapon to any person other than a person who is authorised—

(a) by a permit issued for the purposes of section 16(1) to bring or cause to be brought or sent into New Zealand that pistol, military style semi-automatic firearm, or restricted weapon; or

(b) by a permit issued under section 35 to procure that pistol, military style semi-automatic firearm, or restricted weapon.

50 Unlawful possession of pistol, military style semi-automatic firearm, or restricted weapon
(1) Every person commits an offence and is liable on conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 years or to a fine not exceeding $4,000 or to both who—

(a) is in possession of a pistol and is not a person authorised or permitted, expressly or by implication, by or pursuant to this Act, to be in possession of that pistol; or

(b) is in possession of a restricted weapon and is not a person authorised or permitted, expressly or by implication, by or pursuant to this Act, to be in possession of that restricted weapon:

(c) is in possession of a military style semi-automatic firearm and is not a person authorised or permitted, expressly or by implication, by or pursuant to this Act, to be in possession of that military style semi-automatic firearm.

I am guessing National Police HQ would be very interested in that!

I didnt say which AO it was.

It seems there are alot of those Pedantic people here he was refering to.

I think it was best I said nothing at all.


You let someone use a Ruger 10/22 with a 10 round mag, no problem

You let someone use a ruger 10/22 thats registered all hell breaks lose.

Originally Posted by Southern Man

So your AO is choosing not to enforce quite serious regulatory infingements?

44 Selling or supplying pistol, military style semi-automatic firearm, or restricted weapon to person who does not hold permit to import or to procure
(1) Every person commits an offence and is liable on conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 years or to a fine not exceeding $4,000 or to both who sells or supplies a pistol, military style semi-automatic firearm, or restricted weapon to any person other than a person who is authorised—

(a) by a permit issued for the purposes of section 16(1) to bring or cause to be brought or sent into New Zealand that pistol, military style semi-automatic firearm, or restricted weapon; or

(b) by a permit issued under section 35 to procure that pistol, military style semi-automatic firearm, or restricted weapon.

50 Unlawful possession of pistol, military style semi-automatic firearm, or restricted weapon
(1) Every person commits an offence and is liable on conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 years or to a fine not exceeding $4,000 or to both who—

(a) is in possession of a pistol and is not a person authorised or permitted, expressly or by implication, by or pursuant to this Act, to be in possession of that pistol; or

(b) is in possession of a restricted weapon and is not a person authorised or permitted, expressly or by implication, by or pursuant to this Act, to be in possession of that restricted weapon:

(c) is in possession of a military style semi-automatic firearm and is not a person authorised or permitted, expressly or by implication, by or pursuant to this Act, to be in possession of that military style semi-automatic firearm.

I am guessing National Police HQ would be very interested in that!

I didnt say which AO it was.

It seems there are alot of those Pedantic people here he was refering to.

I think it was best I said nothing at all.


You let someone use a Ruger 10/22 with a 10 round mag, no problem

You let someone use a ruger 10/22 thats registered all hell breaks lose.

No one said anyone broke the law

In the arms code it states

Crossing fences
If there is a gate – use it! Never climb a fence while
carrying a firearm. Carrying loaded firearms through
fences and over obstacles can result in injury and death.
• If there are two or more people, one should climb over
the fence without a firearm. Then, pass the unloaded
firearms across with the actions open, and pointed in a
safe direction.


Now how do you follow the arms code with a MSSA ??