Thread: Good News - 22 Tube mags can be modified again

Originally Posted by no1_49er

There seems to be a lot of back and forth here, fellas. It's almost as bad as a BS he said / she said argument.

The facts of the matter are that if the magazine holds ten rounds or less, then it is compliant. More than ten, it is not.
Does it matter how, or by what means the magazine is, or became, compliant. It might have arrived at the situation before the current possessor acquired it. It might even have been made like that.

The unresolved part of this discussion is "policy".
I've got no irons in this fire and don't give a shit about "policy". What needs to be asked of the blue gang is this - which specific section of the Arms Act, or which Regulation of the Arms Regulations, specifies who is actually required to undertake modifications to achieve compliance? Unless that can be clearly identified, then I don't give a f^k about "policy", which seems to be another way of saying "that's how we'd like it to be".
It is the role of the blue gang to prosecute the law, not make it up as they go along.

Couldn’t agree more. This whole issue does my head in. Went through this process with my Mod94 and have the requisite documentation to prove it in my safe. That was “the requirement” at the time.

Then when I had my little tete a tete with the new arms officer in Dunners and the local copper a few years ago regarding recording firearms as part of a change of address process, it came down to me politely informing him that I don’t give a fat rats arse about police policy. Show me in the Arms Act or jog on!!

There’s a reason enacting new laws need due process, it doesn’t always get it right but there is a lot of care and attention to the ramifications, unlike police policy, which is driven by ideology with no care whatsoever to the issues they create.

Originally Posted by no1_49er

There seems to be a lot of back and forth here, fellas. It's almost as bad as a BS he said / she said argument.

The facts of the matter are that if the magazine holds ten rounds or less, then it is compliant. More than ten, it is not.
Does it matter how, or by what means the magazine is, or became, compliant. It might have arrived at the situation before the current possessor acquired it. It might even have been made like that.

The unresolved part of this discussion is "policy".
I've got no irons in this fire and don't give a shit about "policy". What needs to be asked of the blue gang is this - which specific section of the Arms Act, or which Regulation of the Arms Regulations, specifies who is actually required to undertake modifications to achieve compliance? Unless that can be clearly identified, then I don't give a f^k about "policy", which seems to be another way of saying "that's how we'd like it to be".
It is the role of the blue gang to prosecute the law, not make it up as they go along.

That’s a fine view in theory but in practice that means that every time someone well meaning notifies Police of a technically prohibited firearm that they’d be doing search warrants, taking their license, dragging them through the Court and ultimately getting them convicted of a serious firearms offence..

I’d much rather they apply commonsense and offer an avenue for those people to 1 - not have their lives ruined and 2 - actually get to make their firearm legal if they wish. To make it legal it makes sense they’d want some form of certification from an independent expert rather than relying on the owner, given they’ve zero guarantee of that persons technical competence in firearms modification. Bear in mind they’re are under no legal obligation to offer a modification option so the argument cuts both ways.. they could equally just say it must be handed in only or worse just prosecute the individual straight off for possession

So every ford ranger that's not wearing original factory rims is now non wof complient and you can't put complient rims back on it yourself thou must get it done by Firestone or beautepairs...the corner garage can't do it either..... Would be same scenario.either it's legally compliment or it's not. For firearms example. A twelve gauge shotgun with smoothbore is not allowed for big game on doc controlled land but rifled barrel is. Regardless of anything else it's a rifle,by definition of a rifle,it has rifling. Magazine is less than eleven rounds.

Originally Posted by Micky Duck

So every ford ranger that's not wearing original factory rims is now non wof complient and you can't put complient rims back on it yourself thou must get it done by Firestone or beautepairs...the corner garage can't do it either..... Would be same scenario.either it's legally compliment or it's not. For firearms example. A twelve gauge shotgun with smoothbore is not allowed for big game on doc controlled land but rifled barrel is. Regardless of anything else it's a rifle,by definition of a rifle,it has rifling. Magazine is less than eleven rounds.

Not apples to apples by any means but I think a better scenario would be if that ranger is pink or green stickered for non compliant rims.. once it’s been officially labelled as non compliant (similar to that firearms owner notifying police that they have a technically prohibited firearm) then that ranger can only be signed off by an approved testing centre to get the sticker removed, not just a home fix even if it’s easy.

The big difference to this scenario is that it’s prescribed in Land Transport legislation that this is the pathway to making it legal. Under the firearms legislation if Police didn’t apply discretion that ranger would be getting seized on the side of the road and the driver would be off to court..

But up until a week ago you could alter magazine yourself....so what changed and why.its not rocket science to do...

But yes if you hadn't fixed length...played dumb ..then were dumb and registered as 11 round....I guess there is case to be answered and fair enough paperwork needs to be seen....eg the issue has been sorted not just put back in cabinet. The question..do you have illegal/ non compliment magazines made me chuckle one wonders how many answered yes to that one lol

Great q, no idea 🤷*♂️

I guess having it certified is good in the sense that if you buy off someone who’s had it done you’ve got something to fall back on rather than just taking their word for it that they did it right and it’s legit. Not an issue to double check if you know your shit but we all know that not every firearm owner is technically minded

Originally Posted by Micky Duck

But yes if you hadn't fixed length...played dumb ..then were dumb and registered as 11 round....I guess there is case to be answered and fair enough paperwork needs to be seen....eg the issue has been sorted not just put back in cabinet. The question..do you have illegal/ non compliment magazines made me chuckle one wonders how many answered yes to that one lol

Haha I guess it’s like those vetting forms you get asking if you’re a member of a terrorist organisation!

Originally Posted by KeyMod

That’s a fine view in theory but in practice that means that every time someone well meaning notifies Police of a technically prohibited firearm that they’d be doing search warrants, taking their license, dragging them through the Court and ultimately getting them convicted of a serious firearms offence..

I’d much rather they apply commonsense and offer an avenue for those people to 1 - not have their lives ruined and 2 - actually get to make their firearm legal if they wish. To make it legal it makes sense they’d want some form of certification from an independent expert rather than relying on the owner, given they’ve zero guarantee of that persons technical competence in firearms modification. Bear in mind they’re are under no legal obligation to offer a modification option so the argument cuts both ways.. they could equally just say it must be handed in only or worse just prosecute the individual straight off for possession

I agree with you and it looks like we’re complaining about an actual common sense policy for once. But, and it’s a big but, the police, in all their blindness, are addressing a cynical, distrusting audience whom they have made the scapegoat for their own incompetence. We have born the brunt of a concerted, very public campaign using disinformation/misinformation and sometimes outright lies against us, hence the frustration shown on this thread. Common sense and the police haven’t really gone hand in hand in recent times given the bloated bureaucracy of the FSA, the registry, licensing etc.

Personally, I don’t think there’s any grounds for questioning those of us that had our firearms modified by any of the approved gunsmiths at the time, certified as such and duly paid for by the taxpayer.

As aside, when I registered the 94 the option was for a 10 shot. I could have registered it unmodified and no one would have been the wiser. Go figure.

Originally Posted by Sidetrack

I agree with you and it looks like we’re complaining about an actual common sense policy for once. But, and it’s a big but, the police, in all their blindness, are addressing a cynical, distrusting audience whom they have made the scapegoat for their own incompetence. We have born the brunt of a concerted, very public campaign using disinformation/misinformation and sometimes outright lies against us, hence the frustration shown on this thread. Common sense and the police haven’t really gone hand in hand in recent times given the bloated bureaucracy of the FSA, the registry, licensing etc.

Personally, I don’t think there’s any grounds for questioning those of us that had our firearms modified by any of the approved gunsmiths at the time, certified as such and duly paid for by the taxpayer.

As aside, when I registered the 94 the option was for a 10 shot. I could have registered it unmodified and no one would have been the wiser. Go figure.

Couldn’t agree more, on all counts. Once permanently modified and certed it’s just a 10 shot, end of.

Hi everyone, I'm new here and have one of the .22 rifles with a tube magazine that this thread is all about. I'm after recommendations for a gunsmith to modify my magazine down to 10 capacity, does anyone know of a good gunsmith located anywhere between Wellington and Hawke's Bay who can do this and what the likely cost will be please? I'd be looking at the option that gundoc mentioned in post 25 '…The normal method with tubular .22 mags is to remove the front plug (usually held in with a cross pin) and weld on a piece of 4-5mm steel rod of the correct length to stop the follower at 10 rounds down through the middle of the spring. Dead easy and does not affect the external appearance...'

Thanks in advance

I would contact GaryP in the Bay. He is a member here and does good work and is a very helpful chap.