Thread: a cat endorsed onto your e cat

Things have changed between then and now. My friend tried yesterday and was told NO. The NZSRA president posted on Sport Shooter that his AO received an e mail from PNHQ today saying " no A cat's to be moved to E cat". You got in before the lock.

Originally Posted by Beavis

Things have changed between then and now. My friend tried yesterday and was told NO. The NZSRA president posted on Sport Shooter that his AO received an e mail from PNHQ today saying " no A cat's to be moved to E cat". You got in before the lock.

Oh lucky me, maybe they fear a flood of applications.

Originally Posted by Beavis

Things have changed between then and now. My friend tried yesterday and was told NO. The NZSRA president posted on Sport Shooter that his AO received an e mail from PNHQ today saying " no A cat's to be moved to E cat". You got in before the lock.

This is why it is suggested that the way to successfully do what you want is to cease thinking / acting / communicating in terms of moving one letter of the alphabet into another.

The actual process that is embarked on is "manufacturing" a "military style semi automatic firearm".

The only thing required to manufacture a military style semi automatic firearm is that you first obtain an endorsement for that individual firearm.

The condition precedent to obtaining an endorsement is that you are "fit and proper." If you are fit and proper, the arms officer cannot refuse to issue you the endorsement applied for.

The astute civilian gun owner who wants to manufacture a military style semi automatic firearm will simply and quietly ask the Arms Officer for the application forms for an endorsement without running off at the mouth and saying anything more.

In the application section where is asks what firearm you're interested in buying: write down: "An AR15 .223"

Once the application is completed, hand it in to the arms office in an envelope, complete with the $204 fee receipt. There is no requirement at this stage to discuss anything further with the arms officer.

The arms officer is then obliged by law to process and determine your application on the basis of your fitness and properness.

Once you have the endorsement, then write (enail) the arms officer; cc: LVC PNHQ and provide the serial number of the AR15 that you have then manufactured into military style semi automatic configuration.

Job done

As can be seen, nowhere in the process does the concept of moving one letter to another get discussed or become controversial. The arms officer is unlikely to be obstructive and difficult because he or she is simply unaware that you are intending to manufacture your own military style semi automatic firearm.

Essentially there are two ways of approaching the problem. Option (A) is the astute and intelligent legal method. Option (B) is to be transparent aka 'run off at the mouth' and let the arms officer and PNHQ walk all over you with illegal policies. Imagine Everest with two routes the easy way and the hard way.... if you want to get to the top, take the easy route... if you love the personal challenge of a relentless grind, take the hard route. NSA has blazed the easy south east ridge for you with lots of difficult work and expense over the last two years... why would you then want to take the west ridge direct?

No a-e forever?? Or just temporarily? That's utterly retarded and I can't imagine the justification for it. There isn't even any internal logic within the way this stuff is handled.

But what happens when PNHQ has issued a directive to AO's stating they are not to process any applications in the meantime - there is no time limits involved as far as processing an application as far as I am aware.
That way the Police achieve what they want through "other" means.
It is only once they have approved your application, then you can "manufacture" you MSSA if I am reading the above correctly?

Originally Posted by muzr257

But what happens when PNHQ has issued a directive to AO's stating they are not to process any applications in the meantime - there is no time limits involved as far as processing an application as far as I am aware.
That way the Police achieve what they want through "other" means.
It is only once they have approved your application, then you can "manufacture" you MSSA if I am reading the above correctly?

It is understood that the directive applies to endorsement applications where it is the understanding of the arms officers that the applicant wants to convert what is referred to as a A category firearm to an E category firearm. In fact because you are not doing that; rather you are manufacturing a military style semi automatic firearm, the ostensible directive does not effect you.

However if that is incorrect and there is a directive floating around that all endorsement applications are on hold, please let NSA know asap so that we can sue for nonfeasance.

Similar in practice to the US system of "tax stamps" for NFA items.

Righto, stupid question time
I hold an E endorsed licence. I do not own at this time any E cat firearms. If say, I borrow a high mag capacity capable A cat rifle, in an AR platform and slap one of my 30rnd mags in it, technically converting it to E cat, is that a no no or is it all good because I hold an E endorced licence?

Originally Posted by R93

Righto, stupid question time
I hold an E endorsed licence. I do not own at this time any E cat firearms. If say, I borrow a high mag capacity capable A cat rifle, in an AR platform and slap one of my 30rnd mags in it, technically converting it to E cat, is that a no no or is it all good because I hold an E endorced licence?

In your case, the police have overlooked cancelling one or more endorsements that you had in respect of MSSA firearms that you previously owned. The endorsement(s) are effectively a nullity.

You cannot use MSSA features on a semi-automatic firearm unless you hold an endorsement for THAT firearm. I.E. there is no such thing as a "general" endorsement.

You're manufacturing an MSSA by doing that, and to manufacture an MSSA you must hold an endorsement for THAT MSSA on your license. As I understand it.

Originally Posted by gimp

You're manufacturing an MSSA by doing that, and to manufacture an MSSA you must hold an endorsement for THAT MSSA on your license. As I understand it.

I suspected as much, ta.

I'm not too sure, but has the court ruling effectively annulled the E license endorsement. Going back to the law, as it was passed my parliament rather than the police interpretation, has court ruled that the firearm itself has to be 'attached' to the license holder. A way around this is to 'manufacture' (what we have previously called an E-Cat) MSSA and simply hand the police a form stating that you have (or more correctly time wise will) manufactured the firearm instead.

Originally Posted by gadgetman

I'm not too sure, but has the court ruling effectively annulled the E license endorsement. Going back to the law, as it was passed my parliament rather than the police interpretation, has court ruled that the firearm itself has to be 'attached' to the license holder. A way around this is to 'manufacture' (what we have previously called an E-Cat) MSSA and simply hand the police a form stating that you have (or more correctly time wise will) manufactured the firearm instead.

The court has not annulled what you refer to as an "E licence" endorsement. There is no such a thing in law as an 'E licence' or an 'E endorsement'; nor has there ever been such a thing. A [fill in your alphabetic letter here] endorsement is and always has been a figment of police imagination. At no time has such an endorsement existed in law.

Here is what an endorsement looks like

{Firearm} <-> [Endorsement] <-> {Licence} <-> {licence holder}

An endorsement is required for:

A Pistol
A Military style semiautomatic firearm
A Restricted Weapon

Each of these three types of firearms is defined in the Arms Act, s2 and augmented by regulations (Arms Regulations 1992)

A, E, B, F etc endorsements are defined nowhere; they do not exist, nada, null, nothing, nil, zilch and so on and so on. They carry the same status as a 'Fixed overhead Twizzlers' endorsement... i.e there is no such a thing !

Originally Posted by NSA

The court has not annulled what you refer to as an "E licence" endorsement. There is no such a thing in law as an 'E licence' or an 'E endorsement'; nor has there ever been such a thing. A [fill in your alphabetic letter here] endorsement is and always has been a figment of police imagination. At no time has such an endorsement existed in law.

Here is what an endorsement looks like

{Firearm} <-> [Endorsement] <-> {Licence} <-> {licence holder}

An endorsement is required for:

A Pistol
A Military style semiautomatic firearm
A Restricted Weapon

Each of these three types of firearms is defined in the Arms Act, s2 and augmented by regulations (Arms Regulations 1992)

A, E, B, F etc endorsements are defined nowhere; they do not exist, nada, null, nothing, nil, zilch and so on and so on. They carry the same status as a 'Fixed overhead Twizzlers' endorsement... i.e there is no such a thing !

I think I understand what you're getting at (correct me if I'm wrong - just trying to understand): the legislation doesn't "label" the various endorsements "A-cat", "E-cat" etc.

It would seem to me that the correct legal "terminology" should be: Pistol Endorsement, MSSA Endorsement etc.

That said, it seems that the Police choose to call an "MSSA Endorsement" an "E-cat" endorsement etc. You're saying this isn't technically right/lawful?

That said, the Police are probably entitled to use such "informal labels" under the regulations for every day purposes?

It might be helpful if you could also please comment on your view that each MSSA Endorsement only relates to a specific firearm, and reconcile that with paragraphs 17-19 of the 2013 Lincoln case? Paras 17-19 set out what I think most peoples understanding of the current situation is - that is:
- an Endorsement can be applied for, granted, and held, without being specific to one particular MSSA/Pistol/Firearm.
- generally speaking that Endorsement makes it lawful for you to be in possession of firearms of the endorsed type.
- the Permit to Procure makes it lawful for your to obtain (i.e. actually take possession of) the actual endorsed firearm (conversions now excepted).

Is the issue here one of a general MSSA Endorsement (allowing multiple MSSA's to be ultimately possessed (pursuant to Permits to Procure)) vs an MSSA Endorsement issued with a condition that it relates specifically to only one MSSA? I don't know anyone that had to specify on their MSSA Endorsement application the type of MSSA they were gong to get...

Not being argumentative, I'm just a little confused reading your posts......

Which makes it interesting as to how it's recorded on your license.