Thread: NEW MSSA law ..?.......

Agreed, now we have the term "semi-automatic", but that term is not explicitly defined. They tried in version 1, but that got shot down pretty quick.

And this is where it gets stupid, because you will get someone arguing what a semi is and is not...

Plus you get deliberately provocative statements such as "Our expert firearms engineers are currently working on adaptations for AK / AR variant firearms. These modifications will prevent the last round loaded from chambering and discharging. Firearms modified in this way will no longer legally qualify as semi-automatic under the amended Arms Act. "

Damned if you do, damned if you don't

Originally Posted by ebf

Agreed, now we have the term "semi-automatic", but that term is not explicitly defined. They tried in version 1, but that got shot down pretty quick.

And this is where it gets stupid, because you will get someone arguing what a semi is and is not...

Dude. WTF are you talking about?

Semi-auto is explicitly defined in the new provisions. Anyone with a basic understanding of what they're talking about can see that by reading the Act.

One thing that is obvious from this and other legal threads is that pretty much no-one understands the first thing about how legislation works or how to interpret it.

Some might whinge about how it is defined, but it most definitely defined.

As for other comments in this thread about people testing what the law means. Welcome to the real world. This is why you don't legislate just for the lulz. Every law change creates unintended consequences, new provisions get tested through the courts, particularly where you're messing with people who have the collective resources to take the government to court. The courts don't always side with the agency that came up with the original provisions.

Originally Posted by scaggly

Dude. WTF are you talking about?

Semi-auto is explicitly defined in the new provisions. Anyone with a basic understanding of what they're talking about can see that by reading the Act.

One thing that is obvious from this and other legal threads is that pretty much no-one understands the first thing about how legislation works or how to interpret it.

Some might whinge about how it is defined, but it most definitely defined.

As for other comments in this thread about people testing what the law means. Welcome to the real world. This is why you don't legislate just for the lulz. Every law change creates unintended consequences, new provisions get tested through the courts, particularly where you're messing with people who have the collective resources to take the government to court. The courts don't always side with the agency that came up with the original provisions.

Well said. At the end of the day, the courts will decide what exactly "semi auto" means as defined in the act.

Originally Posted by scaggly

Semi-auto is explicitly defined in the new provisions.

Scagly, my mistake, your are correct sir

I guess if the Police had not started this all off with the illegal "butts" fiasco then we would all be abiding by their illegal pre "Butts" interpretation and they and us would all be happy and none the wiser. The Police have gone on record stating they wish to now return to the pre "Butts" interpretation. So we will have to wait and see if they are stating the truth.
If this statement is correct and they do infact wish to return to pre "butts" then the past 2 yrs has been a total and utter waste of time and money and someone in PHQ needs a rocket up there jacksee, as all this ammendment has done is to alleinate a high number of law abiding shooters and cause distrust towards the NZ Police in the eyes of alot of shooters.

Sensible laws would be meet by sensible responses. Aboslute nonsense laws well-they deserve the response they get.