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

Originally Posted by scaggly

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.

Yes GB looks like you are correct. The Act only states .22 rimfire. The smaller rimfire round is lumped with centrefire. Crazy laws that do nothing for safety.

Yip - gonna be a a few .17HMR owners out there unwittingly in possession of MSSA's. Great law I'm glad they put so much thought into it.

It was also great to see they took on the advise of experienced shooters, our MP's expertise in all things firearms was duly noted during the second and third readings. Was great to see they knew what they were talking about.

I have a nosey at the 3rd reading, almost fell asleep wish I had the audio version, I can see some MP gunning for increased amendments mind the pun, and then you read MP Prosser, and say yeah, don't punish the legit users because of idiots out there.

Guess we will have to see what happens later this year, I will sit on ye picket fence with my Marlin 917VR pondering the future.

Originally Posted by Beavis

Yip - gonna be a a few .17HMR owners out there unwittingly in possession of MSSA's. Great law I'm glad they put so much thought into it.

I don't actually know of any 22WMRs or HMRs with bigger mags from factory off the top of my head, usually they're 5 or 7. Who makes semi-auto HMRs anyway? Can't be many around. Bolt actions can still have mags as big as you like if I'm reading it right.

Originally Posted by GravelBen

I don't actually know of any 22WMRs or HMRs with bigger mags from factory off the top of my head, usually they're 5 or 7. Who makes semi-auto HMRs anyway? Can't be many around. Bolt actions can still have mags as big as you like if I'm reading it right.

Magnum Research, Excel Arms, Ruger, Marlin. Not all that common but they are out there. It is still a stupid omission.

Originally Posted by Savage1

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.

I think most of this post is bollocks, it barely makes sense. Caseless ammo is hardly a serious, near future issue in NZ, or even the world bro, more an ideal solution to soldiers carrying too much useless case. Try gangs or separatist groups with illegal guns or unlicensed weirdos getting kit with big mags or belt feed, if you are looking for issues.

As for people trying to get around the law, a few common sense judges with a pair of nuts each will easily get around that by making good common sense rulings and setting a precedent. Worrying about people changing a semi to get around the law is bullshit, everyone knows what a semi is.

My first post was flawed in that I didn't say that the bill only affected semi's. I knew this but had failed to state it so addressed it in my very next post. I also read the legislation this morning before work. It doesn't change my first post. The ammendment is pretty much exactly as Nicholas Taylor summarised it in NZG&H, funny that with him being paid to do that sort of thing.

The statement I made about bolt guns being next on the list, NEXT on the list, had nil to do with the said legislation, more of a warning for what future laws or amendments may bring.

Thanks for pointing out the errors in my post, posts sometimes don't come out how they are meant.