.17 HMR or .17 HM2 are restricted to seven rounds in a semi-auto for A-cat.Quote:
Originally Posted by gonetropo
15 rounds is for .22 inch rimfire, which would include short, long, long rifle or magnums.
Read section 2 of the Arms Act.
Printable View
.17 HMR or .17 HM2 are restricted to seven rounds in a semi-auto for A-cat.Quote:
Originally Posted by gonetropo
15 rounds is for .22 inch rimfire, which would include short, long, long rifle or magnums.
Read section 2 of the Arms Act.
Unfortunately this is true and is what stops sensible discussions and laws being created.Quote:
Originally Posted by gonetropo
We like too shake our head at Americans and their gun lobby, but all you need to look at is Australia and the UKs gun laws too see this is exactly how it happens.
law applies to rimfire regardless of caliber. its ok to buy a 22 mag etc with a 10 shot magQuote:
Originally Posted by systolic
You heard it here first folks, no A cat rifle can hold more than 7 rounds.Quote:
Originally Posted by Savage1
Better hand in your Troy pump actions to Savage1 directly.
Chop chop chop, swap swap swap, they simply don't give a fuck about e cat rules.Quote:
Originally Posted by Savage1
A criminal doesn't care, he'll do it anyway, the firearm is stolen anyway and he's trying to kill people, why would he care?Quote:
Originally Posted by Savage1
Also you have a bigger problem to worry about than a pointy thing at the end of the gun.
Guess what that means? You could even make an A cat one too!Quote:
Originally Posted by Savage1
Well that sure would stop a criminal using a stolen A cat AR, he'd never dare to use a 30 round mag in it and risk being done for having an E cat gun right?Quote:
Originally Posted by Savage1
Didn't need your permission (Believe it or not).Quote:
Originally Posted by Savage1
Think you overall missed the boat here Savage.
Stealing an A cat AR vs an E cat AR makes not a single drop of difference, both can fit normal capacity magazines. Both can have pistol grips. Both can even be converted to full auto.
All of those are facts.
EDIT:
P.S Shout out to those PMing me.
Man, lose the signature.
You're coming across like an ass.
@systolic is right that the law (presumably written before .17hmr and .17hm2 existed) specifically refers to 'a magazine designed to hold 0.22-inch rimfire cartridges'. I guess you could argue that a .17hmr magazine is 'designed to hold 0.22-inch rimfire cartridges' though as manufacturers generally use the same magazine for both. Would be interesting to see that one tested in court!Quote:
Originally Posted by gonetropo
Only applies to semi-autos though of course, bolt/lever/straight pull/pump etc can take as many rounds as you like.
See now you're just moving the goal posts to cover your argument. Now you're talking about guns being modified, essentially making them a different category. As I was talking about rates of fire I was obviously talking about semi autos.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jexla
Good luck getting an mp5 on a cat considering it has a freestanding pistol grip and telescopic stock.
So your logic is that a cat is just as deadly as e cat because it can be modified to e cat making it an e cat, therefore an a cat isn't as deadly as an e cat. Makes perfect sense. You also admit that they can be converted to c cat, therefore making c cat no more deadly than a cat by your logic, however you said that c is more deadly than a cat. Since they can be chopped then they're all as deadly as a pistol?
You're not the only one that gets PMs.
you have come across enough times in most of your posts your feelings on police, @Jexla ... and i agree with moutere , lose the sig .... and for all the guys pming you to do what ? give their support ... do it pubicly ... i support @Savage1 and pretty much everything he says .... you ... not so much .Quote:
Originally Posted by Moutere
Heck of a lot of words about being terrified that someone might do something nasty
Fuck someone might run over 83 of us with a truck
Or fly a plane into a building
Semi A-cat rifles can only hold 7 rounds, non semi is unlimited too. I find your post suggesting which FAL holder would be more deadly in some sort of shootout with police amusing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Savage1
Reality is, they are criminals and they don't care what features the firearm has. That's why they are criminals.
I think it's sad you two are caught up in a ruckus on this forum, in some ways I agree with both of you. I can see why @Jexla has his view on police considering top level brass is upto some serious ultra vires shit currently.
However this has nothing to do with you @Savage1 or any other law enforcement personnel on this site.
Best statement of the thread yet.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasquatch
If someone can explain to me how restricting the rights and freedoms of law abiding has a direct effect on criminal activities then I would love to hear it.
Truth is the "law abiding" are easy targets and since they are easily found its easier to hound them on "technicalities"
Everytime someone says that, God kills a puppy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasquatch
Because it's the go-to, copy 'n paste, phrase :D
Emotions run high on our rights and responsibilities, we should be able to enjoy our sport without worrying about somebody pinching our hard earned toys. Unfortunately our hobby's tools are more appealing to criminals than a skier's.
I would feel shithouse if mine got pinched even tho they can be replaced be insurance.
Tighter security measures wouldn't worry me too much ( a few grand in a 800 dollar safe spot or a few grand in a glorified cupboard)
Let's not argue the finer points of the alphabet AbCdeF. Geee why can't we all just agree.
While some people have issue with the police, I have always been polite even when in the wrong and it has gone fine. No matter what walk of life you will always strike assholes.
If you bump into more than 2 assholes a day.... Maybe your the asshole
or even worse justin bieber releases a new singleQuote:
Originally Posted by Kscott
Police inspector says gun and knife crime has stayed steady or declined. Maybe I'm not just making it up with the statistics available to me?
"Glossop said gun and knife crime had remained steady or declined across most districts, which was an encouraging trend."
The surprising items wielded as weapons in New Zealand | Stuff.co.nz
WE MUST CHANGE THINGS TO MAKE OUR LIVES HARDER TO SOLVE THIS PROBLEM THAT WE'RE TERRIFIED OF THAT oh it doesn't actually exist
Nailed it. Too many people keep possession of something that they carry to 'protect' themselves, and that's where Police should be directing their actions. Perhaps if more strident measures were policed, a South Auckland 2 year old wouldn't have been killed by a shotgun kept under the bed. How the shotgun got there and why should be a top priority.Quote:
Overall statistics showed firearms made up about 10 per cent of weapons offences, while sharp instruments; knives, glass bottles etc. accounted for 20 per cent.
Glossop said gun and knife crime had remained steady or declined across most districts, which was an encouraging trend.
But he said he was concerned about people carrying around weapons or keeping them in their car for protection - which could be an offence without a lawful excuse.
The danger, he said, was the risk of weapon escalation.
"If the baddies start thinking everybody's armed with something then they'll carry a bigger weapon and before you know it we're talking about firearms and before you know it we're going to hell in a handbasket.
"Too many people think it's OK to keep possession of something that they'll carry with them to protect themselves. If everybody starts doing that then we may as well move to America."
sawn off shotgun owned by a non licensed owner at that. this is what the cops should make the focus of any gun laws not the law abiding
As per the original post for this thread, was it security ? And just how said firearm ended up in the wrong hands. Not every FAL holder is law abiding ;)
Here's a few from a couple of minutes googling:Quote:
Originally Posted by Kscott
John Mowatt
The Bedroom Murders: 29 shots, 3 people dead. Why? - National - NZ Herald News
Peter Edwards
Man jailed for selling guns to gang | Radio New Zealand News
Dale Jenner
Gun stash on show - news - waikato-times | Stuff.co.nz
John Mabey
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/ar...ectid=10593826
Re-railing this thread
- Has there been anything in the media on this? Not that I've seen and those muck raking turd-farmers are always onto this crap like it's 1/10th of the threat they portray it to be.
Ps "turd-farmer" is my fav insult for the week. Funny AF imo
Latest info from Firearms Owners United is that there are no approved BCE category safes and that police will have to approve a certain make and model for compliance. It sounds like the issue may stem from dodgy Chinese manufacturers, who have sent compliant samples and then cut lots of corners come production time.
So if you are the lucky owner of a now non complyant jobbie what are your options. It was approved when you bought it.
Oh well, this should be interesting.
One has to ask, how many of these safes have been burgled and as a result, how many B/C/E category firearms have been stolen and used in the commission of a crime? What is the exact make and model of the safe(s) in question deemed to not be compliant? Where is the evidence to show that these safes are not compliant?
As i understand it with regards to make and model, none currently meet the police spec, but that'smy understanding not necessarily the truth.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryan
And as I understand it, if effected, you're fucked, unless you take the CGA approach.
This is something he was told outside of FOUNZ, don't take it as fact. Could be completely untrue.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beavis
Unfortunately the police are not very good when it comes to communication and are just saying, yeah nah lots of safes aren't good enough, we won't tell you why.
Sounds a little bit far-fetched IMHO. I've a certificate from a chartered, ISO 9001 accredited New Zealand engineering company declaring that my safe is compliant in terms of Arms Act 1983 Regulation 28(1)(c). The safe is secured in the prescribed manner as approved by AO.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beavis
Short of an equally accredited engineer coming to my house and proving otherwise, I'd say they can tell their story walking.
one safe i saw had a hollow door full of ball bearings, if you tried to cut into it the bearings would roll and make it damn hard to cut. i did make the comment that it would be even more of a deterrent if it was filled with ball bearings and gunpowder. :D
I can only relay what I've read from other sources. But the police have a history of doing what they want and requiring court action to put them right.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryan
I wonder if class action litigation is an available option in the New Zealand legal system?
Class action going on now, appealing the non-punishment of directors of Pike River Mine, over the 29 deaths of Pike River employees.
Action is being taken through the Companies Act, Work Safe Act and OSH regulations.
Duty of Care being the grounds for the action.
So I'd think that a class action over this commentary, by police, is a possibility.
Stop the importation and sale of non-compliant B/C/E safes.
Maybe the industry needs an AS/NZS standard for manufacture of same.
Which should also include 'approved fixing methods' to a structure.
Takes that decision out of police hands all together.
The Arms Act safe specification is too loose in this regard.
If the AO makes an on the spot decision, then the FAL license applicant could be up for a lot of extra, unanticipated costs.
A properly constructed Standard, means then the safe (all categories), is either compliant/non-compliant.
If it meets the standard, then it is certified as such.
Same as fixing the safe to a structure.
There already is a New Zealand standard for safes, AS/NZS 3809:1998 Safes and Strong rooms.
You don't want that standard for gun safes in NZ.
Funnily enough in "gun control heaven " Australia, gun safes don't have to comply with the standard either.
Sent from my SM-G900I using Tapatalk
Government should focus on gun control only to an extent where it doesn't hinder with carrying the gun for the self defense. These days gun control is only to irritate gun owners. They have to take care a lot of things to keep their license safe.
It makes no sense that we as licensed firearm owners, who have our characters more thoroughly scrutinised than any member of civil society, are demonised so much by the media and the police.
I read an old NZ Herald article from 2006 which stated that firearm related crime accounts for less than 1.3% of crimes committed annually. For a country that has such a low rate of firearm crime, one can only surmise that there are ulterior motives for the NZP's latest incentive.
It's all about control, maintaining it and expanding it where possible.
Say what ?Quote:
Originally Posted by gunnerjacky
The fact that there is two simultaneous pushes to arm front line police and restrict private gun ownership indicates that Ryan is right. This isn't a tinfoil hat conspiricy theory it's the logical conclusion given the facts.
On a similar note there is a worldwide push headed by the USA to restrict the ability of private individuals to share\copy information or media that they own (anti piracy, IP laws, Sky copyrighting the Olympic news) at the same time state governments are affirming their rights to read all of your web traffic and private e-mails whenever they want.
Why is it ok for the NSA\GCSB to read my e-mails the contents of which are private and something I care about personally but I can't download a movie off megaupload.com which only has a very small monitary value and no privacy implication? Why does a Hollywood movie studio have more rights than I do?
The only bright spot in all this is that anything is hackable so the Panama papers got released and Hillary Clinton's emails got hacked and released. Eventually they will intimidate the hackers into stopping though...
Going to pick one thing in your post (because it's the easiest). Sky has paid a lot of $$ for Olympic broadcast rights. News media in NZ have always worked with restrictions for access and video if they are not the rights holder - same for any big event like RWC, Commonwealth Games, America's Cup, etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by MassiveAttack
Fairfax aka Stuff and NZME aka NZ Herald have said they want to use Sky video as much as they like, on their websites. Not in newspapers which is their origin, but web sites. And Sky have said no, unless you agree to limiting the duration of the video. TVNZ and TV3 have always been in the same boat and have always agreed to the restrictions.
Both Stuff and NZHerald and said no, they don't want to follow those rules, despite they're using the video just like TVNZ and TV3. Which is why Sky took Fairfax to court for breach of copyright - it's business.
There's no grand world wide conspiracy.
It's simply Stuff and NZHerald acting like dicks and getting their hand smacked and complaining.
The IP discussion for individuals is more complex, so a glib one liner won't be good enough.
I'm glad some of you can see it how it is really is and are not afraid to call a spade a spade. The rest of you are happy to watch your rights wither into nothing then pretend you don't know how it happened.