Thread: How to immobilise old fiream to create safe wall hanging

Originally Posted by Kiwilad2021

A firearm dealer recently told me to do this.

This is where we can get ourselves into trouble. A firearms dealer is not a Judge. A policeman is not a Judge. Even a lawyer with a legal opinion is not a Judge.

Has this ever been tested in a court of law? The proposition that a firearm that is cut vertically is no longer a firearm?

Originally Posted by inglishill

I am confused, if there is no legislation that specifically deals with the subject then there is no 'deactivation'. There is, as you say, no law for it. How can you then argue 'I have been threatened with prosecution in the past, but they never followed through because they knew I was doing it correctly"?

​How can you do it 'correctly' if there is no legislation to guide you?

Police sent me a letter telling me to stop doing it or they would prosecute me. I ignored the letter as I knew what I was doing did not constitute any offence. The letter was over 20 years ago and I haven't heard from them yet.

I don't need legislation to "guide me" as I read and understand English quite well and make the effort to keep familiar with the law. Legislation does not tell you what you can do, it only tells you what you can't do, and is required to be quite specific and written in "plain English". There is nothing in the law about modifying a firearm to such an extent that it is no longer able to be considered a "firearm" as defined by law. Once it is a non-firearm then possession is not covered by the provisions of the Arms Act or Arms Regulations. You have realise that the law works both ways, a fact that Police have been known to overlook in the past with some of their policies.

Originally Posted by inglishill

I am confused, if there is no legislation that specifically deals with the subject then there is no 'deactivation'. There is, as you say, no law for it. How can you then argue 'I have been threatened with prosecution in the past, but they never followed through because they knew I was doing it correctly"?

​How can you do it 'correctly' if there is no legislation to guide you?

Is that you Sidney???? Lmfao

Originally Posted by gundoc

Police sent me a letter telling me to stop doing it or they would prosecute me. I ignored the letter as I knew what I was doing did not constitute any offence. The letter was over 20 years ago and I haven't heard from them yet.

I don't need legislation to "guide me" as I read and understand English quite well and make the effort to keep familiar with the law. Legislation does not tell you what you can do, it only tells you what you can't do, and is required to be quite specific and written in "plain English". There is nothing in the law about modifying a firearm to such an extent that it is no longer able to be considered a "firearm" as defined by law. Once it is a non-firearm then possession is not covered by the provisions of the Arms Act or Arms Regulations. You have realise that the law works both ways, a fact that Police have been known to overlook in the past with some of their policies.

Sure, whatever. It is my opinion, and, only my opinion, that what you are espousing here has the potential to lead licenced firearms owners in a direction that could see them in breech of our firearms laws. To be fair I have unfairly picked on you as your presented a case with the most authority I have read here. It was not my intention to single you out of the crowd who thinks they know how our legislation should be interpreted. I also have no alternative nor definitive answer to the question.

If, as you assert, that you 'read and understand English quite well', what is it that you are reading and understanding to keep familiar with the law if not legislation? What else 'guides you' in these understandings?

Your assertion that the law only tells you what you can't do is misinformed and also dangerous. If this is what you think of law then you have no place suggesting to anyone what their lawful obligations may or may not be. You potentially have a case for being right if you are talking about tax law, which we are not.

I agree with you that there is nothing about modifying a firearm to the extent that it is no longer a firearm. What you then propose by suggesting once it is a 'non-firearm' seems to mean that you are self determining this? By what qualification or professional standard are you able to make this determination?

The only definitive answer we could gain is that is any of this has been tested in a court of law. I have been unable to find any such case. I will look further into it only so that I may be of some use in this discussion in a positive way.

I must reiterate, this is not an attack on you personally, but on the ideas you and others have proposed and thinking about how that might be interpreted by others. If someone were to take your advise, or any of the other suggestions made, and feel that they were complying with the firearms law, they may not be. This is why I am asking these questions to seek clarity on the matter. We are as a group vilified enough in the public eye without further interpreting things in a manner where we think better than anyone else.

Originally Posted by Micky Duck

Is that you Sidney???? Lmfao

No, well, I don't know who Sidney is. Maybe people call me Sidney behind my back.

If you are implying that I may be anyone other than who I am presenting, then No, I am not this Sidney you speak of.

Originally Posted by inglishill

No, well, I don't know who Sidney is. Maybe people call me Sidney behind my back.

If you are implying that I may be anyone other than who I am presenting, then No, I am not this Sidney you speak of.

A quick note before I put you on my block list as a spankcarrot with no fucking clue

The guy you're giving shit to is a gunsmith of long standing with a very high reputation who has forgotten more about firearms than I will ever learn

Back in ya box, boy

Originally Posted by 308

A quick note before I put you on my block list as a spankcarrot with no fucking clue

The guy you're giving shit to is a gunsmith of long standing with a very high reputation who has forgotten more about firearms than I will ever learn

Back in ya box, boy

Am I not allowed an opinion? Am I not allowed to question someones position in a respectful manner?

Is your only answer to hurl personal insults?

He may be a gunsmith of high standing and has forgotten far more than I know as well, this does not make him a Judge or an arbiter of the law. It makes him a very good gunsmith.

You have obviously misinterpreted what I have been saying.

Your attitude here is the inflammatory one.

My experience in this area is one of over 50 years as a professional gunsmith and also classified by the Courts as an Expert Witness in the subject of firearms and ballistics with over 30 years of experience in that area. I am not encouraging anyone to act unlawfully but merely pointing out that deactivations have been successfully done for many years. It requires a bit of intestinal fortitude, but it is possible. I freely admit that there are passages in NZ legislation that give people legal grounds to take certain (otherwise unlawful) actions in certain circumstances but with the proviso that the burden of proof upon such actions lies on them, vis, the Crimes Act as an example.

Originally Posted by gundoc

My experience in this area is one of over 50 years as a professional gunsmith and also classified by the Courts as an Expert Witness in the subject of firearms and ballistics with over 30 years of experience in that area. I am not encouraging anyone to act unlawfully but merely pointing out that deactivations have been successfully done for many years. It requires a bit of intestinal fortitude, but it is possible. I freely admit that there are passages in NZ legislation that give people legal grounds to take certain (otherwise unlawful) actions in certain circumstances but with the proviso that the burden of proof upon such actions lies on them, vis, the Crimes Act as an example.

Excellent, thank you for the clarification.

Originally Posted by inglishill

Sure, whatever. It is my opinion, and, only my opinion, that what you are espousing here has the potential to lead licenced firearms owners in a direction that could see them in breech of our firearms laws. To be fair I have unfairly picked on you as your presented a case with the most authority I have read here. It was not my intention to single you out of the crowd who thinks they know how our legislation should be interpreted. I also have no alternative nor definitive answer to the question.

If, as you assert, that you 'read and understand English quite well', what is it that you are reading and understanding to keep familiar with the law if not legislation? What else 'guides you' in these understandings?

Your assertion that the law only tells you what you can't do is misinformed and also dangerous. If this is what you think of law then you have no place suggesting to anyone what their lawful obligations may or may not be. You potentially have a case for being right if you are talking about tax law, which we are not.

I agree with you that there is nothing about modifying a firearm to the extent that it is no longer a firearm. What you then propose by suggesting once it is a 'non-firearm' seems to mean that you are self determining this? By what qualification or professional standard are you able to make this determination?

The only definitive answer we could gain is that is any of this has been tested in a court of law. I have been unable to find any such case. I will look further into it only so that I may be of some use in this discussion in a positive way.

I must reiterate, this is not an attack on you personally, but on the ideas you and others have proposed and thinking about how that might be interpreted by others. If someone were to take your advise, or any of the other suggestions made, and feel that they were complying with the firearms law, they may not be. This is why I am asking these questions to seek clarity on the matter. We are as a group vilified enough in the public eye without further interpreting things in a manner where we think better than anyone else.

This particular gents depth of knowledge in firearms is such that I suspect he would be one of the most qualified persons, if not the most qualified person in the country to be correctly called an expert. It would be a very short list to try and find anyone who matched or exceeded his level of experience or knowledge in this area....

Originally Posted by timattalon

This particular gents depth of knowledge in firearms is such that I suspect he would be one of the most qualified persons, if not the most qualified person in the country to be correctly called an expert. It would be a very short list to try and find anyone who matched or exceeded his level of experience or knowledge in this area....

As he has now indicated and I have accepted. Not everyone knows who everyone is and what their qualifications are. This is why I asked.

Originally Posted by inglishill

As he has now indicated and I have accepted. Not everyone knows who everyone is and what their qualifications are. This is why I asked.

Suggest you google "R Lincoln vs Nz Police "judgement of Mallon J". if nothing it may open your eyes a little more .none begrudges one seeking to establish bonafides -however what can be challenged is exactly how one goes about it.
a trap for young players.

Originally Posted by kotuku

Suggest you google "R Lincoln vs Nz Police "judgement of Mallon J". if nothing it may open your eyes a little more .none begrudges one seeking to establish bonafides -however what can be challenged is exactly how one goes about it.
a trap for young players.

Thank you.

Google didn't really produce a judgement by Mallon, I did find this though https://www.nzlii.org/cgi-bin/sinodi...ry=R%20Lincoln is this the case you were talking of? I realise it is a different Judge but can not locate the judgement you are talking of.

Maybe this one?
R Lincoln vs NZ Police - pistol grips.pdf

Originally Posted by no1_49er

Maybe this one?
Attachment 265424

Excellent, thank you.