Thread: Our gun laws

I find myself getting frustrated whenever I think about the provisions of the Arms Act and its various amendments. I firmly believe that laws should make sense, but in the case of the Arms Act I can't help but feel we're being forced to comply with illogical restrictions that have been engineered to simply to frustrate and confuse the law abiding gun owner.

Very interested to hear people's perspective on the points below:

1. E-cat magazine capacity restriction. If someone steals my A-cat AR-15 from my a-cat safe, they can simply walk into a gun shop and purchase a 30-round magazine no questions asked, and no licence required. Yet, if I want to own the same AR-15 with a 30-round magazine I need an endorsement + upgraded security. Somehow I need to convince the police that I'm fit and proper to own the same rifle in this context, but a criminal will simply buy whatever they need and do whatever they want.

2. Collapsible stock. Same as above.

3. Pistol grip. Same as above.

4. Pistol grip. My A-Cat Ar-15 has a thumb-hole stock that is functionally identical to a standard pistol grip. Yet, if I want to own the same AR-15 with a free-standing pistol grip I need an endorsement + upgraded security.

5. We're sometimes led to believe that the defining features of a MSSA (pistol grip, etc) are less about functionality and safety and more about how the public will perceive a firearm with MSSA features. Yet, I can own an A-cat bolt action rifle with a pistol grip, 10 round magazine and collapsible stock that a member of the public would not likely be able to distinguish from a MSSA.

Thoughts?

The rules are nuts, so get your E-cat, or buy up on as many AR15 lowers as you can afford for A-cat purposes.

If you look at what the overall intention is then it makes sense. To keep a better handle on MSSAs.

What's happened is people have found loopholes all over the place with the legislation that attempted to define what an MSSA is, which in the end has destroyed the intention of the law. Challenges that were bought on by Police.

I disagree with the judge in the pistol grip saga, I thought it was pretty clear cut what military pattern free standing pistol grip meant.

Originally Posted by Savage1

If you look at what the overall intention is then it makes sense. To keep a better handle on MSSAs.

...but the features that define a MSSA make no sense.

Originally Posted by Banana

...but the features that define a MSSA make no sense.

Yup I agree, the only real way around it I can see is to class by type eg M16, AK47 etc. But even then people will make slight modifications to circumvent etc.

Sometimes it's hard putting simple things in law.

Originally Posted by Savage1

Yup I agree, the only real way around it I can see is to class by type eg M16, AK47 etc. But even then people will make slight modifications to circumvent etc.

Sometimes it's hard putting simple things in law.

I don't think that would work

If there has to be multiple category's of firearms then it needs to be so clear that even someone who knows very little about firearms can understand it.

Eg- pistol, manual operated(bolt,pump,lever etc) semi auto, full auto.

I don't see why M16s or AKs should be restricted more than any other semi (or any gun). They're all functionally the same.

Re MSSA features not making sense. My personal favourite example is collapsible stocks. Pin an adjustable stock to its shortest position, and that's perfectly fine for a-cat. Make it adjustable again so that it can only be made LONGER, and that's a E-cat feature. Insanity.

Originally Posted by Mauser308

Regardless of how many rounds a magazine holds, it only takes one bullet fired in the wrong place to create a shit storm of epic proportions.

I can own a .50cal or a Boyds anti-tank converted, or a 20mm Bofor converted as an A-cat firearm yet I can't own a semi-automatic centerfire rifle with a magazine capacity larger than 7 rounds?

I personally think the police need to either concentrate on the criminals and pass firearms licensing, enforcement and policy onto an agency that can cope with it OR get real. We are either fit and proper to own a firearm of any class or we aren't. This half arsed approach of you can have this but you can't have that is not sustainable or sensible.

If a person is too dodgy to own an e-cat, why the hell are they allowed to own anything that goes bang?

Regardless of intent, a firearm is a firearm and the Military Style Semi-Automatic class just doesn't exist. It's a fundamentally flawed policy implemented by people who need to find a way to keep their job and a solution to a problem that only exists in Wellington... Yes there have been firearms used in mass shootings, in every case that I've looked into the perpetrator was not or was no longer a fit and proper person. If the current rules had been followed the crime would not have occurred...

I'm sorry, but any time a rule about storage conditions and license classes is defined by a part that clicks on and off at will and costs less that $100 to buy it just will not be successful. There are so many A-cat firearms now registered on E-cat endorsements after the gimmee-E handouts that the whole thing has become a farce. Police have seriously dropped the ball on this, as a E-cat firearm can be confused as A-cat and vice-versa just because it currently isn't fitted with the correct mag (of which there may be several handfuls to choose from). Bah...

What a way to create a ballsup...

Thank's Mauser, you've summed things up very nicely!

It's the rinse and repeat thread

Originally Posted by Dannz

Re MSSA features not making sense. My personal favourite example is collapsible stocks. Pin an adjustable stock to its shortest position, and that's perfectly fine for a-cat. Make it adjustable again so that it can only be made LONGER, and that's a E-cat feature. Insanity.

but if you pin it too short , and overall length is less than 762mm ..... you now own a pistol

Originally Posted by Banana

I don't see why M16s or AKs should be restricted more than any other semi (or any gun). They're all functionally the same.

Well, not really...

If they were all the same we would still see people doing armed robberies etc with flintlock pistols and muskets, or being issued with those when they do military service...

The reality is that a modern semi-auto rifle with a high capacity magazine is significantly more functional and effective. On the good side it makes for a very effective and fun firearm for recreational shooting, on the negative side - if it lands up in the hands of a criminal or nutcase, it is a truly scary option.

I don't see why M16s or AKs should be restricted more than any other semi

I mainly meant this part. I added the 'or any gun' because I think if you can't be trusted to own a certain type of firearm, you can't be trusted to own any firearm. I didn't mean all guns are functionally the same.

Ahh great, this chestnut again. Jump on everyone!

Originally Posted by Banana

.... I think if you can't be trusted to own a certain type of firearm, you can't be trusted to own any firearm.

Having seen some scary shit on rifle ranges and pistol ranges, I feel (A) it's too easy to get a license and (B) keeping pistol license separate is a good thing