Thread: Anyone a member of SSANZ or The NZ NSA?

Herb, you well know my position on firearms orgs, so we won't go there. Even though I'm one of those "gun wielding nut cases" or what ever the pollies think we are, I do agree with the points you raise and commend COLFO for at least attempting to talk "them" round.

Where we part ways is where I believe COLFO are kidding themselves if they think logic and reasoning is going to influence their desired end game - the whole sale crack down on A cat holders being able to own semi autos. Almost 300 submissions couldn't tell those mouth breathers that this AAB is a shitty law which will generate confusion and inevitably result in a judicial review. Call me a pessimist, but I saw the thumbhole debacle as another stepping stone towards taking semi auto's off the open market. I'm not kidding myself - I know EXACTLY what the intent of the '92 amendment was, and the thumbhole stock issue and now this amendment. They do not want modern, accurate, ergonomic and effective semi auto rifles from being available to the public at large. The fact that they have struggled to come up with a way to stop the whole sale import of undesirable rifles, due to poorly thought out legislation has been a real thorn in their side. The new bill addresses that issue by giving them the ability to name what they please as an MSSA, rather than making every semi auto fall under the requirement of an E endoresment. They know that would stir up too much resistance from more main stream gun owners at the moment.

And this is where I'm getting at - you can talk to them all you want, but the end game stays the same. What would the MSR scene be like in NZ right now had no action been taken by R.Lincoln? Pretty abysmal I reckon. Mini 14's and crappy trigger rear Saiga's would be about it. I can't speak for any other service rifle club but my own, but giving A catters access to decent quality rifles to start out with seems to have drummed up more interest in the sport. No longer do you start out with a grubby SKS, then save shitloads for a budget AR on E cat, at a highly inflated price. It is a real shame it will come to an end shortly. I have made heaps of new friends and had some great times, meeting all the guys with similar tastes, coming out of the wood work.

They are slowly grinding us down, the best we can do is lodge court action where applicable to give them a punch in the nose now and then. It boils down to the fact that people want these guns, the authorities don't so conflict is bound to result.

I know we all need to work together and stick together. United we stand. Not just Colfo and the NSA etc but all shooters...hunters, target shooters, clay, pistol, etc, etc.

I think realistically, court action is a last ditch attempt to stop an erosion of privileges. In the case of the original amendment, the COP wanted an out right ban on the import of certain rifles - no special import permits - a flat out ban, not coming in ever again. Fortunately PSI, in a similar action to NSA thumbhole case took him to court, citing "ultra vires" behavior and fortunately for us agreed and slapped the ban down. I think this was a better out come than pandering to the wants of our police force and not rocking the boat. If it wasn't for that we would probably be shooting service rifle with Mosins and Enfields almost exclusively. If that were the case I wouldn't bother making the 4 hour + return trip to my club every month or two. So I think it stands to reason that court action is better than no action at all, but I know what you mean - court action inevitably results in legislative change. Pretty catch 22 if you ask me. A shit system.

Pretty catch 22 if you ask me. A shit system.

Agreed.

So your saying people can legally bury firearms in pvc pipes to comply with the pending regulations?
Im not trying to be a smart arse, just trying to get my head around your statement

Originally Posted by savage270

So your saying people can legally bury firearms in pvc pipes to comply with the pending regulations?
Im not trying to be a smart arse, just trying to get my head around your statement

Tbh I thought that in a way is still in your possession

Originally Posted by Toby

Tbh I thought that in a way is still in your possession

Well, no - not in my opinion.

"Possession is 9/10th's of the law". You can't get arrested for something you don't have. If universal registration of firearms in NZ had succeeded, then yes, perhaps there'd be a case to answer for because the police would have the firearm and owner's details on record and if one wasn't able to account for that firearm then they could be charged with negligence or whatever the legally appropriate term might be.

I remember when Canada's LGR got shredded there were threads on CGN and CGS about what guns you were finally digging up after x number of years. Pretty hard case.

In answer to the last few replies to this thread:

@Savage1: Im not sure what in your opinion is a 'prohibited weapon'. As far as I am aware, the only weapons that are prohibited in NZ are anti-personnel mines and cluster munitions. NSA does not encourage people to bury anti-personnel mines or cluster munitions. Anyone in possession of such prohibited weapons ought to hand them into the nearest arms office or MoD bomb disposal unit.

I am not aware that it is an offence to encourage a person to bury something. If you can direct me to the section of the Summary Proceedings Act, Arms Act or Crimes Act that sets out a penal offence for encouraging a third party to bury something I would be interested to check that out. I am not aware that a firearms licence can be revoked for any reason other than the licence holder being considered not fit and proper to hold such a licence.

Most DC case and all High Court cases involving the Arms Act are reviewed by me as the president of NSA and I have never seen any case where a judge has convicted a person for unlawful possession of a firearm that they have preserved in cosmoline and buried in the ground.


@Ryan, Toby, Savage 270 & Savage1: The term "possession" has a complex, somewhat flexible but certainly unique meaning for the purposes of the Arms Act 1983. New Zealand cases such as Coorey v Police and Roberts v Police have established, for example, that "possession" has a different meaning for the purposes of the Misuse of Drugs Act and the Arms Act. Sullivan v Earl of Caithness (1976) is presumably a UK case that does not concern the NZ Arms Act; it is therefore not applicable.

There is no hard and fast meaning as to 'possession' for the purpose of the NZ Arms Act. An indicator may be a case (I have forgotten the citation but its widely known) about a civilian gun owner that had a sporting semi-automatic in his safe and a couple of normal capacity 30 round magazines were discovered in a space above his HWC. He was found guilty of unlawful possession of a MSSA. The Judge noted that the material fact on which the case turned was that both the rifle and the magazines were found in the same residential property. The Judge noted that had the rifle and the magazines been stored in different locations, so they were not immediately 'at hand' then the charge of possession of an MSSA would almost certainly not be sustained. This case would seem to indicate that even if a person has ownership of a firearm or parts thereof, and knows where to retrieve it from, if that is a remote location; such that the firearm or parts are not immediately at hand, then there is no possession.


All NZ legislation is required to be interpreted purposively (s5.1 IA 1999) and the purpose of the Arms Act is to control firearms and ensure public saftey. The primary concern which is repeated by members of our legislature ad nauseum is keeping guns out of the wrong hands. That of course strongly suggests that guns in the right hands or no hands at all are not the mischief which the Arms Act and it's regulations are aimed at. If the right hands disposses themselves of a gun pending a change in the legal landscape, and the right hands then repatriate that gun, it would seem that the working purpose of the Arms Act is met.

Hope this helps explain the position

Kind regards
Richard Lincoln

Originally Posted by krewzr

In answer to the last few replies to this thread:

@Savage1: Im not sure what in your opinion is a 'prohibited weapon'. As far as I am aware, the only weapons that are prohibited in NZ are anti-personnel mines and cluster munitions. NSA does not encourage people to bury anti-personnel mines or cluster munitions. Anyone in possession of such prohibited weapons ought to hand them into the nearest arms office or MoD bomb disposal unit.

I am not aware that it is an offence to encourage a person to bury something. If you can direct me to the section of the Summary Proceedings Act, Arms Act or Crimes Act that sets out a penal offence for encouraging a third party to bury something I would be interested to check that out. I am not aware that a firearms licence can be revoked for any reason other than the licence holder being considered not fit and proper to hold such a licence.

Most DC case and all High Court cases involving the Arms Act are reviewed by me as the president of NSA and I have never seen any case where a judge has convicted a person for unlawful possession of a firearm that they have preserved in cosmoline and buried in the ground.


@Ryan, Toby, Savage 270 & Savage1: The term "possession" has a complex, somewhat flexible but certainly unique meaning for the purposes of the Arms Act 1983. New Zealand cases such as Coorey v Police and Roberts v Police have established, for example, that "possession" has a different meaning for the purposes of the Misuse of Drugs Act and the Arms Act. Sullivan v Earl of Caithness (1976) is presumably a UK case that does not concern the NZ Arms Act; it is therefore not applicable.

There is no hard and fast meaning as to 'possession' for the purpose of the NZ Arms Act. An indicator may be a case (I have forgotten the citation but its widely known) about a civilian gun owner that had a sporting semi-automatic in his safe and a couple of normal capacity 30 round magazines were discovered in a space above his HWC. He was found guilty of unlawful possession of a MSSA. The Judge noted that the material fact on which the case turned was that both the rifle and the magazines were found in the same residential property. The Judge noted that had the rifle and the magazines been stored in different locations, so they were not immediately 'at hand' then the charge of possession of an MSSA would almost certainly not be sustained. This case would seem to indicate that even if a person has ownership of a firearm or parts thereof, and knows where to retrieve it from, if that is a remote location; such that the firearm or parts are not immediately at hand, then there is no possession.


All NZ legislation is required to be interpreted purposively (s5.1 IA 1999) and the purpose of the Arms Act is to control firearms and ensure public saftey. The primary concern which is repeated by members of our legislature ad nauseum is keeping guns out of the wrong hands. That of course strongly suggests that guns in the right hands or no hands at all are not the mischief which the Arms Act and it's regulations are aimed at. If the right hands disposses themselves of a gun pending a change in the legal landscape, and the right hands then repatriate that gun, it would seem that the working purpose of the Arms Act is met.

Hope this helps explain the position

Kind regards
Richard Lincoln

Sorry I was talking about restricted weapons. Telling people to bury restricted weapons in the ground to hide from the Police would be an offence under section 50 of the Arms Act and section 66(1)(d) of the Crimes Act.

Your right, a FAL cannot be revoked unless the holder is deemed not to be an unfit or proper person. Inciting people to commit an offence against the Arms Act would be than enough to show you to not be a fit or proper person.

NZ does use case law from other countries, especially the UK since our legal system was based on theirs. Possession generally means they have knowledge of the object and have physical control over it. Hence the case law I outlined earlier where the defendant was over 100km from the firearms and they weren't stored on his property but was convicted because he had knowledge of them and physical control of them.

How could you possibly think that hiding restricted weapons could be anything but illegal?!

How about you do something responsible and legal, and encourage people to obtain the appropriate endorsements if they want to possess restricted weapons rather than illegally bury them to hide them from the Police just in case there is a law change.

I don't know dude but it sounds dodgy as fuck hiding weapons, and to me its illegal because you know where they are and you have access to it. Not a very good message to send out. I could be wrong of course as I'm only 17 and don't know fuck all but I feel its wrong.

Originally Posted by Toby

I don't know dude but it sounds dodgy as fuck hiding weapons, and to me its illegal because you know where they are and you have access to it. Not a very good message to send out. I could be wrong of course as I'm only 17 and don't know fuck all but I feel its wrong.

I ought to clarify that I am not discussing anything about weapons. What I am discussing here are firearms; sporting equipment used for recreational and occupational shooting. Weapons in New Zealand are held by the government (police and MoD) and criminals; these are used for shooting people and are not covered by the licensing, endorsement and permit provisions of the Arms Act.

Kind regards
Richard Lincoln

Originally Posted by krewzr

I ought to clarify that I am not discussing anything about weapons. What I am discussing here are firearms; sporting equipment used for recreational and occupational shooting. Weapons in New Zealand are held by the government (police and MoD) and criminals; these are used for shooting people and are not covered by the licensing, endorsement and permit provisions of the Arms Act.

Kind regards
Richard Lincoln

You like to point out exact wording in statues. In the Arms Act 1983 they refer to them as "Weapons".

I fail to see how the examples you have given show that they wouldn't be in possession of a firearm if the buried it. It would be an offence against s19 of the arms regulations.

Suggest you look at Section 66 of the Arms Act and think of how that would apply if the weapons were found buried on your property.

Remember ignorance/arrogance to law is not a defence.

Originally Posted by Savage1

You like to point out exact wording in statues. In the Arms Act 1983 they refer to them as "Weapons".

I fail to see how the examples you have given show that they wouldn't be in possession of a firearm if the buried it. It would be an offence against s19 of the arms regulations.

Suggest you look at Section 66 of the Arms Act and think of how that would apply if the weapons were found buried on your property.

Remember ignorance/arrogance to law is not a defence.

Yes I agree: I think it is important when discussing legal issues to be accurate. The Arms Act refers to "restricted weapons" and the regulations deem certain objects, ranging from tasers and pepper sprays through to full auto guns as "restricted weapons." Weapons are also refered to in the purpose section of the Arms Act. However, I choose to draw a clear distinction between a weapon and a firearm. The authority that I rely on is any reputable dictionary; all of which refer to a weapon as being an object used to attack or defend; normally in inter-human relationships. I am uncomfortable with the proposition that civilian sporting firearms are used for this purpose and police are adamant that civilian firearms cannot be possessed for that purpose. I note that I clarifed that that was my personal stance on the discussion.

S66 of the Arms Act is something that a civilian gun owner would need to take into account, if they had decided to disposess themself by burial, as to where they would bury the firearm. It would probably need to be on public land: i.e in a remote conservation area or similar.

S19 of the regulations does not apply unless possession exists. The whole point of burial is dispossession; therefore once the firearms are not in the possession of the licence holder, the security precautions do not apply. There are similar comparisons in regard to criminal possesion of firearms - unlicensed persons in unlawful possession of a firearm are not required to store the firearm in the regulated security precautions.

I think this is matter that we ought to simply be able to hold different opinions on. I am not asking you to agree with me anymore than I am willing to concede that your view is the correct one.

Kind Regards
Richard Lincoln