Thread: a cat endorsed onto your e cat

Originally Posted by Beavis

I only skimmed through it, but does this mean that if you have an E on your license, you can go ahead and slap a 25 rounder into your 10/22 with no need for a P2P?

A permit to procure under s 35 of the Arms Act 1983 is not required where a
person modifies an existing semi automatic firearm to create a military style
semi automatic firearm.

Thats what I understood from it but then all that legal jargon is written to confuse us all im sure. So who knows lol.

My understanding is that you would manufacturing an MSSA and still need to obtain an endorsement for that firearm.

Originally Posted by Digit

My understanding is that you would manufacturing an MSSA and still need to obtain an endorsement for that firearm.

Yep, that's what I'm thinking too. It falls back to the Endorsement which you would apply for using POL 67H. That case in point is not representative of a lot of us however, as it would seem that Mr Lincoln had no E endorsement at all at the time he wanted to convert his semi to an MSSA. So he's starting from scratch. As R93 pointed out a few pages back, many of us have E endorsement already and to add to our MSSA inventory through conversion of another firearm already in our inventory would mean another POL 67H which requires the payment of a fee... Around we go again.

This is pretty much implied in section 16.4 "Criteria" of the Police Arms Manual where it talks about the application for an E endorsement:

1. The fact that an applicant already owns an MSSA is not a good reason per se to grant
the application.

So they're acknowledging that you could already have an MSSA endorsed to you, but you need another endorsement application for a subsequent one.

Originally Posted by ishoot10s

Yep, that's what I'm thinking too. It falls back to the Endorsement which you would apply for using POL 67H. That case in point is not representative of a lot of us however, as it would seem that Mr Lincoln had no E endorsement at all at the time he wanted to convert his semi to an MSSA. So he's starting from scratch. As R93 pointed out a few pages back, many of us have E endorsement already and to add to our MSSA inventory through conversion of another firearm already in our inventory would mean another POL 67H which requires the payment of a fee... Around we go again.

So pretty much fuck everyone else so 1 person can get what they want without following the status quo that works.

Yup, he got a positive outcome in that he won. The result is worse than if he'd left it alone.

Time to start the partition?

Originally Posted by gadgetman

Yup, he got a positive outcome in that he won. The result is worse than if he'd left it alone.

Depends on which side you view it from

Worse for the police
Worse for the firearms owning public

Not worse for Richard Lincoln - loads more legal wrangling to come...

Cui bono - who benefits ? You could see the NSA simply as a vehicle designed to further the future prospects of a very astute law student / lawyer. The harder the crackdown, the bigger the backlash, ultimately it only benefits one of the three parties above...

I'm lost. How is this screwing anyone over?

Its the unknown thats screwing most people over.

The endorsement system has been thrown into complete chaos just as the MSSA ammendment is about to come into effect.

The best thing that could happen is that the definition of a pistol grip is left as is so that everyone can just keep on doing what they do.

Well if they hadn't fucked with the great system we had pre 2009 none of this would have happened.

Originally Posted by Beavis

I'm lost. How is this screwing anyone over?

Because up until a few days ago, you could cruise over to your local AO and say quietly and with no risk of prejudice "'Ere, guvnor, I wanna put this 'ere A-cat AR on my E-endorsement so's I can use 'er wi' a fuck-off big-arse mag in Service Rifle matches" and it would be done. But now someone at Pol HQ has got the hump big time and issued an edict to all AO's sayin' "No bastard can do nuffink with MSSA's until my blood pressure drops and that ain't gonna happen any time soon...". Now even if such a thing isn't backed up by any acts of law, you have to go to court to challenge it. Or use the Pol 67H technique. Either way, you pay. Thankyou Mr Lincoln.

How could you get that done? People in two different districts I know couldn't get it done. In discussions with my own AO he said he would not do this either. Do some people get special treatment or what?

I fail to see where the current a b e endorsement doesn't work and now each firearm is endorsed as such
What that means is those that have any endorsement or want to pursue that line of firearm collection or sport is now looking at $200 per gun.
So eg: if you have 1/2 dozen E cat guns and want to go overseas for 2 months and move them to a mates for storage then you're looking at $2500 to secure your guns and get them back.
And all because some jumped up prick is on a crusade 'on behalf of us all'
Quite frankly I'm sick to death of the cunt, hes not doing and masses and favors but the court bullshit is just cementing things in place for no progression for the real masses. Minority ideals and wants
It's little wonder why the NSA doesn't get invited to meetings and the going ons behind the scenes.
The rubbishing of Colfo constantly is appalling where end of the day, they are working with and making head way with the Police, the complete opposite of NSA
I'm not a Colfo supporter but given the choice to make its a no brainer

Time to speak out I think and condemn a self appointed party that's acting on OUR behalf

Sure as hell don't speak for me, and judging by the last few range shoots I've done, noone else there either.

You can have your own opinion but when you say nothing and everyone else brings it up and agrees with your thinking, then maybe you're not far off the mark

Yes, previously there was inconsistancies from district to district depending on how involved your AO was with the sport and the enjoyment gun ownership.

Beavis I think it comes down to what each AO is prepared to do, how they interpret the Act and importantly how they see you (judge your character). They used to have some latitude I think, and only certain cases or requests had to be referred to the Manager Licensing and Vetting. I've always treated my AO's with respect, never made demands or pointed out facts of Law. I simply make polite requests and comply with their instructions. Recently I towed one's vehicle out of a bog at a range day. I haven't called in that favour and I never would. But those days of them having the latitude to be accommodating are dwindling, and this recent case is a classic example.