Thread: WE LOST

Originally Posted by Sideshow

Naughty troll back in your boxs

one day im going to get drunk and try trolling for real

Originally Posted by res

one day im going to get drunk and try trolling for real

We do it for marlin all summer long bro, its great sport

Fresh out of a hot shower.

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.

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.

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.

Is it available on his website?

Originally Posted by dogmatix

Is it available on his website?

@dogmatix FOUNZ will have something out this arvo

The plot thickens

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

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.