Thread: Our gun laws

Originally Posted by Kscott

Having seen some scary shit on rifle ranges and pistol ranges, I feel (A) it's too easy to get a license and (B) keeping pistol license separate is a good thing

I have seen plenty of scary shit on this forum without going anywhere near a range.

Scary, I have seen a range of plenty of shit on this forum

Eh I guess if I was a nut bag on a rampage with a bolt gun I'd just kill people slower.

It's all about perspective really. No semi autos might mean less killed in a school shooting or urban rampage. Take the same situation in an isolated rural community, where it might take the police a while to mobilize and sort it out, I doubt rate of fire would matter.

Realistically though, casualty rates would be irrelevant where kids are involved. I reckon if a school shootin occurs we would be totally fucked regardless of firearm type.

Enjoy what you can own while you can own it.

Back on topic. The MSSA features weren't defined by police. A former head of COLFO claims that he defined an MSSA by what he considered it to be, his definition was used to amend the act because "they" had NFI how to actually do it.

I seem to recall some cut and paste from California law as well?

The simple answer would have been to restrict the magazine capacity to ten rounds, In actual fact all they did was copy the Americans Assault Rifle laws because basically
the lawmakers and Police in NZ know shit about firearms and the people that use them.

Originally Posted by Beavis

Enjoy what you can own while you can own it.

Pretty much. I think they just don't like firearm enthusiasts (us) owning 'military style semi's' at all. American laws slowly but surely seem to be creeping closer & closer to home turf.

As for mass shootings, this was interesting, the news tonight told us that the Sister of one of the teachers who died at Sandy Hook 2 years ago is suing Bushmaster for the massacre...

**Face-palm**

Originally Posted by Sasquatch

Pretty much. I think they just don't like firearm enthusiasts (us) owning 'military style semi's' at all. American laws slowly but surely seem to be creeping closer & closer to home turf.

As for mass shootings, this was interesting, the news tonight told us that the Sister of one of the teachers who died at Sandy Hook 2 years ago is suing Bushmaster for the massacre...

**Face-palm**

Yea like suing a brand in a huge investment group is going to actually achieve anything. Not only will the courts slap it down harder than a pimp in Harlem, but really, unless they are gold digging, what could they possibly do to a company that will just offload more of their shit products for cheap at Brownells to pay for it. It could set a precedent judgement for more people to sue America gun companies, but really, their argument is fucking retarded.

hahahaha

For me the only 2 things that make marginal sense is a) restricting mag size and b) not allowing select fire. Any other feature is purely cosmetic and of no real matter. And I agree with banana, if Im allowed a rifle as Im a fit and sane person Then really it doesnt matter what gun I have. Select fire? I mean its cool? yeah sure (I'd love to have a go) if you want to bugger yr barrel in as little as 400 rounds in an afternoon mag dumping yeah great idea, um not. So I'd better get a quick barrel change mechanism then and import handfuls of barrels at a time and sell my testicles to pay for it.

Really I think it comes down to nothing more than making our dumb population feel safe. Which begs the Q what are we as responsible ppl going to do about educating said dumb ppl? I mean I feel like a cigarette smoker shuffling behind the bike sheds for my fix, afraid to tell my neighbours? yeah sure, they'd fill their underwear and ring the cops every other day....

It's to dissuading dilettantes, or people who've played Call of Duty and want an M4orgery.

BTW, if you're caught with a 30 round magazine and don't legally possess an MSSA that it goes in, but instead have a non-restricted semi-auto, you could be committing an offense. Take a look at what some people have been charge with here:

Nicholas Taylor Barrister - Firearms Lawyer - Recent Cases - Nicholas Taylor Barrister - Firearms Lawyer

So case law gets formed, I thought that that's how it works. ie the police dont know exactly the meaning of the law that is for the court to determine if the legislation is not that clear. The police present the case to a court if they think its reasonable to do so. So look at the "military style pistol grip" fiasco, the end result a heck of a lot more cat E holders by the looks of it, and it wasnt that hard to get a Cat E endorsment before June as a result. Just doesnt strike me as the "police hate us" scenario.

The reason why we have MSSA restrictions is because of Government knee-jerk reactions to the Aramoana Massacre in November 1990, under public pressure to 'do something'.

The fact that David Gray had a trespass notice issued against him in January of that year for threatening a shopkeeper with a shotgun is hardly ever mentioned. Had the Police not been so fucking incompetent, they may have saved 13 lives, and we would not have to give a shit about the shape of the weapon, or its capacity.

In most spree shootings, the offender has been known to the authorities. Of course, the authorities need a scapegoat, so, blame the guns.

Talking about fit and sane person in regards to MSSA firearms, I did not realise that there is no reason to give a reason to why you need a E-Cat firearm. So since you have an E Endorsement (MSSA) then you must be already a fit and proper person.

Originally Posted by Yukon

The reason why we have MSSA restrictions is because of Government knee-jerk reactions to the Aramoana Massacre in November 1990, under public pressure to 'do something'.

This was encouraged by the public and politicians being misled that a MSSA was the primary weapon used.

Yea a fire and a couple of .22's were the main killing tools. The Norc 84s was used to kill 4 of the 13.