Thread: WE LOST

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.

Originally Posted by csmiffy

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.

Bit like whats happening with local councils, full of similar people

Originally Posted by csmiffy

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.

Of course thats not what the gun crime data says, but they don't seem to worry about that. Can't let facts get in the way of a good story can you!

And health boards.

Sent from my SM-G390Y using Tapatalk

Not quite the same, though I get it that you have a point there.

Residents, non-citizens, can't stand for council or parliament. Not sure if they can serve in armed forces or police.

Residents can vote though, maybe fair as they pay tax.

Think of the advantage though in giving residency vs citizenship - misbehave and... off you go, back to the hellhole you were born in.

But back to Chris Cahill, it is useful to know that London, UK may be at least as bad, if not worse than New York, USA for homicides now.

and in the usa its not common to have acid thrown at you

Question is whether NZ should set its standards for how it treats people from what people do overseas. Clearly @csmiffy you feel the Aussies treat people like shit, so shall New Zealanders aspire to be like them?

NZ would never have been first to let women vote if it was not guided by wanting to do what was right, not just take the lead from others.

Originally Posted by Cordite

Question is whether NZ should set its standards for how it treats people from what people do overseas. Clearly @csmiffy you feel the Aussies treat people like shit, so shall New Zealanders aspire to be like them?

NZ would never have been first to let women vote if it was not guided by wanting to do what was right, not just take the lead from others.

Nope I don't necessarily feel they treat people like shit. I think they treat kiwis like shit considering we treat their citizens better.
Johnny Howard changed our status their years ago to prevent an easy back door though NZ to their country via our citizenship and they are sticking to.
Aussie does pay way better when its going well though. They do that better than here that's for sure