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

Originally Posted by Toby

mssa=Military-style semi-automatic

Not when you're writing a law it doesn't. The thing that matters most in this particular case is the interpretation section. IF that section defines an MSSA as any firearm the police don't like, then an MSSA is any firearm the police don't like. Logic doesn't come into it, nor does common sense. Hence why you can get screwed right royally for technically breaking laws, but in practice not doing much to warrant it.

In the original case I'm talking about, that is exactly what would have happened. Any rifle, or shotgun, even single shots could have been classified as an MSSA.

So we have people in charge of what we can and cant use and they can't even title it right. Sounds legit as

Originally Posted by Toby

So we have people in charge of what we can and cant use and they can't even title it right. Sounds legit as

Welcome to the public service.....

Black is soooo 90's

Everyone knows that pink is the new black.
With new and improved dangerosity

What people either don't see or prefer to ignore is that it was in the submission that may to future proof the bill. Already the NSA is coming up with stupid ideas such as the last bullet not being automatically loaded to circumvent the interpretation of "semi-automatic" in the bill. It mean't that they could have covered future issues such as caseless ammo.

People jump up and down saying they're targeting bolt guns etc with no evidence. They were doing the smart thing trying to plug future holes in the bill and avoid numerous court cases over interpretation in wording. This is how the lawyers are going to make their money while tying up police and court time.

The power for the GG to make changes to the definitions have always been there in the original Arms Act, just the wording wasn't so specific, so nothing has really changed in that aspect.

Hanse, your original post showed some serious flaws in it, which was why I suggested that you read the actual legislation, it's not that long and is better than getting a heavily biased opinion of it.

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.

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.

Originally Posted by scaggly

Semi-auto is explicitly defined in the new provisions.

Scagly, my mistake, your are correct sir

Originally Posted by scaggly

Arms (Military Style Semi-automatic Firearms and Import Controls) Amendment Bill 285-1 (2011), Government Bill Contents – New Zealand Legislation

clause 4. interpretation.

So a semi 22WMR is allowed to hold 15, but a semi 17HMR can only hold 7.

Originally Posted by GravelBen

So a semi 22WMR is allowed to hold 15, but a semi 17HMR can only hold 7.

No the .17hmr can hold 15 as it is "rimfire of .22 inch or less" as defined in the ammendment. I think the "Less" was ammended more recently than the original wording as I remember hearing someone else mention it when the wording was different.

Whoops, missed the 'or less'. Thats what I get for trying to be a smartass.

Originally Posted by GravelBen

So a semi 22WMR is allowed to hold 15, but a semi 17HMR can only hold 7.

You're looking at the wrong version. If you want to know what the final interpretation section defines a semi as, then go look at the version that was enacted.

Arms (Military Style Semi-automatic Firearms and Import Controls) Amendment Act 2012 No 117, Public Act Contents – New Zealand Legislation

Edit. And yes, under the final wording, it does look a lot like .17 rimfire can only have a max of 7 rounds in a semi.