Thread: Free E's ..... we'll almost

So they all like that???

I asked j green about this, no one has ever been charged under it,and unless they were looking for something to pin on you no one ever will. A very commonly ignored bit of law by every ro who is doing there job-and that's almost all of them.

Someone should do the multi p2p thing as it is the only way such things will get sorted,a Wellington AO said he would love to be involved a couple of years ago.

Originally Posted by res

I asked j green about this, no one has ever been charged under it,and unless they were looking for something to pin on you no one ever will. A very commonly ignored bit of law by every ro who is doing there job-and that's almost all of them.

Someone should do the multi p2p thing as it is the only way such things will get sorted,a Wellington AO said he would love to be involved a couple of years ago.

Unfortunately, some ranges will be enforcing the rule from 11 June onwards. I.e. won't allow you to let your mates shoot your E-Cat MSSA under your supervision.
Mind you, those ranges are anti semis anyway, so not a far extension of that old fart attitude.

Originally Posted by dogmatix

Unfortunately, some ranges will be enforcing the rule from 11 June onwards. I.e. won't allow you to let your mates shoot your E-Cat MSSA under your supervision.
Mind you, those ranges are anti semis anyway, so not a far extension of that old fart attitude.

The reasoning is quite convoluted but it is because there are three seperate sections in law which deal with supplying an MSSA

CIV-2012-409-000866 [2013] NZHC 1813

JUDGMENT OF PANCKHURST J

[68] Faced with the present wording of s 22(2)(a) Ms Coleman conceded that the immediate supervision defence is available in relation to the use of a MSSA, at least in the context of a prosecution against the unlicensed person under s 20. Clearly that concession was appropriate.

[69] However, counsel drew attention to two other offence sections under which charges could be laid. Section 44(1) defines the offence of supplying a MSSA (or a pistol or a restricted weapon) to anyone other than a person who is authorised to receive it by virtue of a permit to import, or a permit to procure. Interestingly, s 44(3) provides a defence where the supply was by a pistol licence holder at a recognised pistol shooting club range and the supplier provided immediate supervision over the pistol while it is in the possession of the other person i.e. the same defence as was contained in the 2005 Bill in relation to possession of a pistol contrary to s 20 of the Act.

[70] Supply is a word of broad meaning. It is apt to cover relinquishing possession of a MSSA even temporarily for the purpose of firearm instruction by the supplier. Potentially, therefore, even in an immediate supervision context the supplier of a MSSA could be charged under s 44, albeit the person receiving instruction may well have a defence under s 22(2)(a).


[71] In addition, s 50(1) creates the offence of unlawful possession of a MSSA by a person not authorised or permitted to do so, for example because they do not hold an E endorsement and a permit to procure. Again, the same immediate supervision defence is available but only in relation to a pistol: see s 50(5). Hence, there is potential for someone placed in possession of a MSSA, but under immediate supervision, to be charged under this section, instead of under s 20 where an immediate supervision defence would be available.
[72] In short, ss 20(1) on the one hand, and 44(1) and 50(1) on the other are in conflict with reference to the availability of an immediate supervision defence in relation to the possession, and supply, of a MSSA. The existence of this conflict further supports the contention that s 22(2)(a) contains a drafting error which, regrettably, was not rectified as proposed in the 2005 Bill.


[73] Mr Lincoln sought a declaration confirming that, were he to supply a MSSA to another for firearm instruction and provide immediate supervision of that person, he would not commit an offence. The value of a declaration confirming that particular conduct is not criminal is well recognised:26
Where ... a party brings proceedings before the Courts relating to matters involving statutory construction ... because he wants to avoid violating the law and in order to ascertain and observe the law, the Court should surely be much more sympathetic towards granting declaratory relief if convenient.
In this instance, however, the reverse is the case. For the reasons given the applicant may be prosecuted under s 44(1) were he to supply a MSSA to someone for the purpose of safety instruction under his supervision.
[74] For these reasons, and in the exercise of my discretion, I decline to grant relief.

Remember that there is no staute of limitations in the Arms Act so charges could be laid at any time in the future if Police should decide to do so - present 'policy' not to prosecute can be changed at any time and Police personnel do change ...

How can a RO do there job and follow that clearly un intended rule?

That can't in my opinion

So the law stands in the way of safe use of a legal item

The multi p2p game is a good way to deal with it-even if only the mssa owners and RO's play it-with the police complaints around funding I'm sure they will want to work something out fairly fast

I noticed that when the vettor came around to do my E-Cat inspection, he didn't touch any rifles, so wouldn't breach that silly rule about handling a MSSA without an endorsement or P2P.

I have my AO popping around on Sunday to do my Vetting.

So E-cat safe fully installed and bottle of Baileys for partner to keep her in a good mood for her interview

That women sounds fuckn scary

Exactly why we should all apply for specific endorsements and P2Ps between endorsed license holders by the hundreds or even thousands each week.
To prevent us being in breach of the Act and to give Police HQ a mountain of paperwork to process.

Then openly let people shoot your E cat if you have one. Put it on youtube if you want. I wont be taking that risk thats for sure.

Originally Posted by Towely

Then openly let people shoot your E cat if you have one. Put it on youtube if you want. I wont be taking that risk thats for sure.

Why on earth would I want to do that?

I agree with him. That doesnt mean at all that I let anyone shoot any E cat firearms that I might or might not own. Do I have an E cat, that would be no ones business but mine.

And the police

I think that's a big part of the problem though. Mr AO says it's sweet, you and you mate go have some fun down at the range, PC plod clamps you in irons. "B-but the AO said it w-was ok!" you cry, as mr AO coldly turns his back on you, and PC plod drags you screaming to an organic sandal weaving facility for "re-education".

Originally Posted by AzumitH

I think that's a big part of the problem though. Mr AO says it's sweet, you and you mate go have some fun down at the range, PC plod clamps you in irons. "B-but the AO said it w-was ok!" you cry, as mr AO coldly turns his back on you, and PC plod drags you screaming to an organic sandal weaving facility for "re-education".

Yep thats a possibility too.