Thread: A "prohibited" firearm?

Technically, it would be, now https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ghKrbNpqQoY

Originally Posted by no1_49er

Technically, it would be, now https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ghKrbNpqQoY

There's an exception in NZ that means antique firearms don't require a licence etc. I can't remember the exact wording of it off the top of my head but this would fall under that.

Yeah it would be legal as any firearm manufactured before 1899 and does not use conventional cased ammunition (rimfire or centrefire) is classed as antique but you can't legally shoot it. I beleive It could even be owned by someone without a firearms licence?
It even allows pistols I think.
See

https://www.firearmssafetyauthority....-be-registered

Scroll to where it says "antiques"

Crazy that any antique trap-door conversions would suddenly require licensing as opposed to their muzzle loading counterparts despite firing the same black powder and same bore diameter projectile.

Definitely classified as 'antique' but I would happily have it on a 'P' endorsement just to have one!!

Legal to own as a relic.

But if you shoot it then needs to have a serial number and be registered

Originally Posted by akaroa1

Legal to own as a relic.

But if you shoot it then needs to have a serial number and be registered

And the magazine would have to be altered. 30 rounds Tut Tut not allowed

Yes, I do understand the 'Antique' classification, but the video demonstrates, fairly clearly, that there is nothing "new" in the business of producing firearms that are capable of multiple successive shots.
In this instance, putting this relic into the same category as those horrible Marlin/Winchester/Browning, etc., lever-action "assault" rifles.
Unlikely as it would be to actually fire that relic, is it really any more, or less, dangerous than its current iteration?

I really hope that the re-write sorts this anomalous shit out.