Thread: WE LOST

Originally Posted by Beavis

Nicholas Taylor has released an opinion on the case. It appears there was also another ruling on length recently that somewhat contradicts the latest one.

I see what you mean, "get creative" with what they have got. What they have is the law, and the ability to abuse their ability to arbitrarily apply it.

Here is a link to Nicholas Taylor's opinion on the case. http://www.firearmslawyer.co.nz/uplo...th_opinion.pdf

I read it. It does not have a strong feel to it, and is based on a distinction of present and future tense. Does not strengthen his credibility to suggest any court would accept that no fit and proper person would ever fold/collapse the stock of an MSSA...

Of course they would use such a practical feature, particularly as it allows the gun to be readily fitted to the stature of the shooter. Shame club guns cannot have such a useful feature as they're usually A-cat.

On the other hand it seems 100% worthwhile to fight against police policy measuring guns without any muzzle attachments, even where they require a tool for removal. You can easily argue that to be arbitrary, since such a rule could as readily be applied to an AR15 muzzle brake as to a SMLE butt stock (which also needs tools for removal), so this was clearly not intended by the original lawmakers.

But Beavis, have you got the link to the other case that went the other way?

Originally Posted by Cordite

Here is a link to Nicholas Taylor's opinion on the case. http://www.firearmslawyer.co.nz/uplo...th_opinion.pdf

Thats from 2 years ago, so probably not the same case?

Originally Posted by GravelBen

Thats from 2 years, so probably not the same case?

It is a pre-case opinion, these things take a while to get to court, but point taken, some uncertainty there.

That's not the document, I tried to link it before but it didn't work. COLFO have it up on their facebook page if that helps

https://kiwigunblog.files.wordpress....004-002273.pdf

I look at it like, the act says a firearm that IS below 762mm in length. Not "could be by doing x,y or z". If your 12.5" AR has a 6" long suppressor hanging off the end, then at that point in time, it does not fit the definition of "is below 762mm".

So essentially what they are hinging their side of the argument on, is how easy it is to get into a state of being below 762mm in length.


So what we need is clear guidance on the easiness threshold. If it can become a pistol in under 5 sec not ok, if it takes a minute, all good?

The idea that a permanently fitted muzzle device is not included is utterly ridiculous.

Originally Posted by Clint Ruin

https://kiwigunblog.files.wordpress....004-002273.pdf

That link is to the transcript of the cross questioning of witnesses, a lot of pages and no judgment at the end.

This link is to the SHORT opinion by Nicholas Taylor, today 23 Nov 2018:

https://kiwigunblog.files.wordpress....cf23112018.pdf

Arms act 1983 "pistol means any firearm that is designed or adapted to be held and fired with 1 hand; and includes any firearm that is less than 762 millimetres in length"
Can it not be argued that they are not "designed to be fired one handed." As per the law. If it has a but stock it is designed to be shouldered and fired 2 handed. It is how the law is written.

Originally Posted by Beavis

I look at it like, the act says a firearm that IS below 762mm in length. Not "could be by doing x,y or z". If your 12.5" AR has a 6" long suppressor hanging off the end, then at that point in time, it does not fit the definition of "is below 762mm".

So essentially what they are hinging their side of the argument on, is how easy it is to get into a state of being below 762mm in length.


So what we need is clear guidance on the easiness threshold. If it can become a pistol in under 5 sec not ok, if it takes a minute, all good?

The idea that a permanently fitted muzzle device is not included is utterly ridiculous.

Start using left hand threads.... that may confuse them. Seriously though hacksaw through a barrel wont take much longer than unscrewing something, let a lone a welded/bonded/pinned attachment.

So we can add these rulings to the Police opinion that an AR lower is not considered a firearm if it is them that leaves in on a lawn.......

One point with the permanently attached suppressors, How do you get on with cleaning and storage? I have seen a number of instances where, due to the suppressor not being removed, the powder residue corroded the muzzle to the extent where barrels have needed to be rethreaded and re crowned to get them to shoot. In fact one needed to be clamped and wrenched off in order to break the suppressor loose and we had to tell the owner that the rifle barrel will survive but there is no promise made that the suppressor would survive removal. If you cannot take it off, you cannot clean it properly and thus risk damaging your rifle.

To play devils advocate, the only people who seem to want "permanently fitted" suppressors seem to be people who have shortened their rifles to the extent that they are no longer legally long enough to be rifles. (IE under 762mm) . I ALWAYS remove the suppressors for storage and cleaning so that there is no powder residue to cause corrosion to the rifle. Thus anything under 762mm would be stored as a pistil if I had anything that short. (I dont, just to be clear.)

Originally Posted by blair993

Arms act 1983 "pistol means any firearm that is designed or adapted to be held and fired with 1 hand; and includes any firearm that is less than 762 millimetres in length"
Can it not be argued that they are not "designed to be fired one handed." As per the law. If it has a but stock it is designed to be shouldered and fired 2 handed. It is how the law is written.

You are at the cusp of it all. The 1983 pistol act specified the 762mm minimum length, that anything less-than that is a pistol.

But please indulge me...

You can readily make a very thin one-handed .22LR single shot rifle 800mm long, looking like this:

r===========================

and even though it is >762mm in length, because it is designed to be shot with one hand, it is a PISTOL!

But if you put a forestock on it, for your left hand to stabilise it...

r===========OOOO============

... then it is not a pistol any more.

A semi auto AK-47 copy, is <762mm with its stock folded, but it is clearly not designed to be shot one-handed, but two handed, preferably shouldered.

The 1993 MSSA legislators clearly had AKs in mind (Aramoana tragedy) but they did not declare AKs to be pistols, in spite of their <762mm length folded. It evidently did not enter their minds to measure an AKs length folded - which forms part of barrister Nicholas Taylor's argument. They DID though consider its folding stock and the risk that posed to public safety (by aiding concealment), and mandated that owners of such guns should pass extra screening checks, have extra security, etc., like for Pistols essentially.

So, not fair on AK47 type mssa owners to change how things are measured, but until legislation is fixed, get a different kind of stock made for it so that NZPHQ (who HAVE got it in for you, or rather for your firearm!) cannot get you into trouble for it (instead of them doing some work and chasing real criminals).

My question is how far do you go? The receiver of a bolt action rifles meets the legal definition of a firearm and is considered the part, by NZPHQ understanding, that is recorded as being a firearm.

Therefore, would the two situations see me in possession of a pistol, that is not registered on my B endorsement.
- If I was to have a barreled action with a 24” barrel, waiting for a stock to be manufactured and shipped from McMillan.
- If I was to have a bare receiver, outside of the stock, waiting for a barrel to be fitted, before being reassembled.

Originally Posted by Oli1102

My question is how far do you go? The receiver of a bolt action rifles meets the legal definition of a firearm and is considered the part, by NZPHQ understanding, that is recorded as being a firearm.

Ask: "Can it be fired in that state?" It MAY be an essential part of a firearm, and therefore restricted, and you are not allowed to have it unless you have a firearms license. But no-one measures length in non-fireable state, even the NZPHQ agrees on that one. Thus a break barrel shotgun is measured closed. Along the same lines, an AR-7 is measured assembled as it cannot be fired disassembled (barrel and chamber unscrews from the receiver).

AR-7 survival rifle.

Originally Posted by Oli1102

Therefore, would the two situations see me in possession of a pistol, that is not registered on my B endorsement.

Originally Posted by Oli1102

- If I was to have a barreled action with a 24” barrel, waiting for a stock to be manufactured and shipped from McMillan.

Maybe not the best example, as the definition of pistol is <762mm. I reckon a 24" barreled action will total 762mm (30") or more and you can legally take it to a rifle range and fire it two handed without any stock (but it might, just might get you in trouble with the range official!).

If the hypothetical action had a 15" barrel however, without stock it would likely be <762mm. A weak defense might be to store it without bolt and without pistol handle, but I can't see it being a ready defense against a hateful police officer out to get you for owning any evil black gun. Stronger option: keep it assembled with its original boat paddle or whatever other stock used to be on it, and swap once the McMillan item arrives.

Originally Posted by Oli1102

- If I was to have a bare receiver, outside of the stock, waiting for a barrel to be fitted, before being reassembled.

As for the AR-7 - length is only measured in a shootable state.

Outstanding question, possibly being appealed, is whether MSSAs, such as folding stock AK's, should be measured in the folded state and therefore be classified as pistols. The cops admit that doing so is a new policy on their part, and it is arguable nonsensical since MSSAs are subject to the same controls and storage requirements as pistols are, only difference being E vs B FAL endorsement required.

Someone please correct me. I am not a lawyer.

The other main differences between B and E is where you can shoot, and when you can have it out of the safe.

Using the knights of ni logic here has anyone noticed that there seems to a lot of English cops both here and in aussie? In senior positions also.
English cops don't like firearms much, aussie cops don't like firearms much. Guns bad-if guns bad in OZ and England then they must be bad here too.
Betcha between the two our officials get a bit of verbal advice from the trench's from these helpful individuals on how evil these things are and how much better it is in their homelands when they are regulated heavily.
But I digress...carry on.