Thread: Owing an A-cat AR-15 + a bolt action rifle with 'MSSA' features

It has been established in court that you can't own an A-cat rifle and be in possession of a high capacity magazine that will fit that rifle (even if you never actually fit it, mere possession of the magazine means you're in considered to possess a MSSA).

Suppose you own an A-cat AR-15 with a thumb-hole stock and 7 round magazine. And suppose you also happen to own an A-cat bolt action rifle in a tactical chassis (e.g MDT TAC21) with a collapsible stock and pistol grip.

Both are perfectly legal A-cat rifles independently, but can you own both at the same time without an E-cat licence? I can't help but wonder what might happen should both rifles be observed during a security inspection.

There would be no issues

Long and short of it is, don't.
The example usually given is owning a Ruger 10/22 and a Ruger 77/22. 25 round mags are common enough, but because that 25 round mag COULD be fitted to a 10/22.......
Save yourself the grief. Doesn't matter if its right or not, its not worth the hassle.

[QUOTE=Gerbs;323981]Long and short of it is, don't.
The example usually given is owning a Ruger 10/22 and a Ruger 77/22. 25 round mags are common enough, but because that 25 round mag COULD be fitted to a 10/22.......
Save yourself the grief. Doesn't matter if its right or not, its not worth the hassle.[/QUOT

High capacity magazine scenario definitely not worth the hassle. Has been tested in court, and you'll lose. My question is whether charges might be bought for other MSSA features that could technically be transferred - namely grip and stock.

Not worth the hassle. although being A class you have no reason to show the AO your rifles on an inspection. also if you need 'high' capacity mags then you've probably got a reason to get your E cat anyway. I considered this when I was looking at getting a mossberg MVP which can fit AR mags. decided it wasnt worth risking getting in trouble if I baught an ar15 and had 30 round mags for a bolt action that can also fit a semi auto.

My god this is pretty basic.

If you own an A Cat rifle that the parts fit then you have a perfectly valid reason for having the parts. The case law that @Dannz is referring to above wouldn't apply. It's common sense, cops have better things to do.

@Dannz

I'd be interested to read this case law you speak of.

Any chance you can reference it for us.

Cheers
Pete

From the Police Firearms Manual 2002. This is not legislation, but it demonstrates the circumstances where you could be at risk. Also quotes the case I think referred to above...

1.19 Possession of a large capacity magazine for an MSSA
“If a person has in their possession both the body of a semi-automatic firearm, and a magazine capable of holding more than seven cartridges then they cannot fit themselves within the exemption of having a weapon in sporting configuration. To find otherwise would make a nonsense of the amendments in 1992 which were specifically designed to limit the use of these firearms following the Aramoana multiple fatality.” (Police v Noel Bruce, Wellington District Court, 30 May 1996, Judge C Somerville). In this case both the large capacity magazine and the firearm were found in circumstances that made it reasonable to believe that they had been used together, that is, the magazine had been fitted to the firearm.

So if you have an excuse firearm in close proximity to the hi cap mag, you are golden. If you don't, you are at risk. By excuse firearm, I mean an E endorsement firearm of the correct type for that hi cap mag, or a non semi firearm that the hi cap mag will fit such as the Remington 7615 pump or similar in the case of AR mags.

Do you think the cops/AO would apply the same reasoning to something like a pistol grip and adjustable stock that was fitted to a bolt action A cat firearm? I would think in most circumstances they would apply a little commonsense and logic to, however that being said if you did something to piss them off it would make for a perfect excuse for them to nail you on something to start with and then continue digging further.

Wonder if it is possible to have an exemption given when having both a A cat AR15 and A cat bolt action with features that could be transferred to the AR making it an MSSA can be obtained? Would think you would receive more leniency if you declared it?

Originally Posted by ishoot10s

From the Police Firearms Manual 2002. This is not legislation, but it demonstrates the circumstances where you could be at risk. Also quotes the case I think referred to above...

1.19 Possession of a large capacity magazine for an MSSA
“If a person has in their possession both the body of a semi-automatic firearm, and a magazine capable of holding more than seven cartridges then they cannot fit themselves within the exemption of having a weapon in sporting configuration. To find otherwise would make a nonsense of the amendments in 1992 which were specifically designed to limit the use of these firearms following the Aramoana multiple fatality.” (Police v Noel Bruce, Wellington District Court, 30 May 1996, Judge C Somerville). In this case both the large capacity magazine and the firearm were found in circumstances that made it reasonable to believe that they had been used together, that is, the magazine had been fitted to the firearm.

So if you have an excuse firearm in close proximity to the hi cap mag, you are golden. If you don't, you are at risk. By excuse firearm, I mean an E endorsement firearm of the correct type for that hi cap mag, or a non semi firearm that the hi cap mag will fit such as the Remington 7615 pump or similar in the case of AR mags.

ishoot10s

Thanks for this.

From this statement it appears that the Judge found that it was reasonable to believe that the Large Capacity Magazine in question "HAD" been fitted to the Semi Automatic Firearm.

This does not mean that if you had in your possession a large capacity magazine that "COULD Fit" a semi automatic firearm that it was indeed used in said semi automatic firearm.

A reasonable defence for this would be to maintain that said large capacity magazine was purchased with the intention to and only ever used in the Bolt Action Rifle Dannz described.

Without proof to the contrary I believe this defence would be sound as you haven't actually committed any offence.

Being in possession of a bolt action rifle with a free standing pistol grip that may or may not also fit an A Cat semi automatic rifle also in your possession does not mean you intend to fit said free standing pistol grip to the Semiautomatic rifle therefore making it fit the Ecat description.

I don't believe you have committed any offence unless you actually fit said magazine or pistol grip or what ever to the semi automatic rifle without holding the appropriate endorsement and registering said firearm as such.

Cheers
Pete

Yeah bro, you can own an E cat AR with all the evil goodies and an A cat AR and its fine up until you fit the evil bits to the saint of an A cat AR.
Still.....

Originally Posted by Savage1

My god this is pretty basic.

If you own an A Cat rifle that the parts fit then you have a perfectly valid reason for having the parts. The case law that @Dannz is referring to above wouldn't apply. It's common sense, cops have better things to do.

Firearms legislation and case law is never basic. Everything is open to interpretation.

You're suggesting that I could have a 30 round magazine sitting next to a semi-auto rifle capable of receiving it in my A-cat(!) safe, provided it was also sitting next to a bolt action rifle capable of receiving it, and that Police would be cool with that?

Originally Posted by P38

ishoot10s

Thanks for this.

From this statement it appears that the Judge found that it was reasonable to believe that the Large Capacity Magazine in question "HAD" been fitted to the Semi Automatic Firearm.

This does not mean that if you had in your possession a large capacity magazine that "COULD Fit" a semi automatic firearm that it was indeed used in said semi automatic firearm.

A reasonable defence for this would be to maintain that said large capacity magazine was purchased with the intention to and only ever used in the Bolt Action Rifle Dannz described.

Without proof to the contrary I believe this defence would be sound as you haven't actually committed any offence.

Being in possession of a bolt action rifle with a free standing pistol grip that may or may not also fit an A Cat semi automatic rifle also in your possession does not mean you intend to fit said free standing pistol grip to the Semiautomatic rifle therefore making it fit the Ecat description.

I don't believe you have committed any offence unless you actually fit said magazine or pistol grip or what ever to the semi automatic rifle without holding the appropriate endorsement and registering said firearm as such.

Cheers
Pete

Thanks for this. Does make you wonder though. Both can be stored in an a-cat safe, yet if I did want to swap the parts I'd need an endorsement + additional security. I'm sure a thief would stop and think about this ;-)

Originally Posted by Dannz

Firearms legislation and case law is never basic. Everything is open to interpretation.

You're suggesting that I could have a 30 round magazine sitting next to a semi-auto rifle capable of receiving it in my A-cat(!) safe, provided it was also sitting next to a bolt action rifle capable of receiving it, and that Police would be cool with that?

Correct. You only come unstuck if you are found in possession of that mag, and the A-cat semi at a time when you are not also in possession of the bolt firearm it also fits. For instance, you are found with only the A cat semi in your car, along with the Hi cap mag, which you had forgotten was still in the car from a previous trip where you had been using the bolt rifle with it....

Originally Posted by Nibblet

Do you think the cops/AO would apply the same reasoning to something like a pistol grip and adjustable stock that was fitted to a bolt action A cat firearm? I would think in most circumstances they would apply a little commonsense and logic to, however that being said if you did something to piss them off it would make for a perfect excuse for them to nail you on something to start with and then continue digging further.

Wonder if it is possible to have an exemption given when having both a A cat AR15 and A cat bolt action with features that could be transferred to the AR making it an MSSA can be obtained? Would think you would receive more leniency if you declared it?

Interesting points. I also wonder if this might make a good reason for an application for an e-cat endorsement. It makes sense in such circumstances that security should be of e-cat standard.