This is verbose but please bear with me….
I have been cruising around some of the forums and there still seems to be a lot of misunderstanding about the term “military pattern free standing pistol grip”. One entry I saw referred to a “military style free standing pistol grip.” Most people seem to think that’s its easier to understand “free-standing” and view “military pattern” as being an obscure loose term for military style or appearance… something that is subject to interpretation. This is not at all correct and factually it is probably easier to define “military pattern” than it is to define “free-standing“. In fact the two terms go together – they are not military pattern – and – or free standing, The term “military pattern free standing pistol grip” does not refer to style or function; it refers to a specific and precise object. You know how the concise military waffle goes… combat sock, foot left, material wool, colour green, 1 of.
Beginning in the early 1700s, ordnance officials, from their headquarters at the Tower of London, divided the manufacture of firearms into locks, stocks, barrels, ramrods, and furniture—all of which they sought to purchase directly from subcontractors. Since different components for the same weapon were made in different locations, Tower officials oversaw the establishment of "Sealed Patterns" (sample firearms) to serve as exact models for gun makers. An Ordnance Office decree of 1722 led to a "standard army musket." The term military pattern is therefore a prefix to specific item of military equipment. In the case of the musket it was the Long Land Pattern musket. So the Long land was a military pattern firearm, the trigger of a Long Land musket was a military pattern single pull trigger. Now you can see it would not make sense to talk about a military pattern without associating that with something i.e.: a military pattern operational ration pack. Again - the two terms go together – they are not military pattern – and – or free standing,
For the purposes of the Arms Act 1982 s2, a “military pattern free standing pistol grip” is a free standing pistol grip that has been manufactured to military specification as part of a military pattern firearm. An example of a military pattern free standing pistol grip would be the military pattern A1 or military pattern A2 pistol grip furnishing an M16 military pattern rifle. The ABC company super duper rubber coated sporting free standing pistol grip that was not produced from a military pattern and is not intended for military use, is not a “military pattern” grip; neither is an SL8 stock or any other thumbhole stock, or pistol grip that is not manufactured to a military pattern.
The Arms Act quite specifically contemplates a pistol grip that is not a “military pattern free standing pistol grip”. If it did intend to restrict all pistol grips then obviously it would state “pistol grip” in the same way as it outright says “flash suppressor” The arms act is quite specific and refers not to any functionality or appearance; it refers to a very specific object. If your firearm is equipped with a pistol grip that is not a military pattern pistol grip of the free-standing variety then your semi-automatic is not currently classified as a military-style semi automatic – PERIOD!
You should also consider this – Armed forces specify (milspec) their military pattern firearms to comply with laws of international warfare. Do you seriously think the NZ Police can redefine a term that has a specific interpretation under international laws of warfare?
Originally Posted by jono035
Reply With Quote
ffice" />
Bookmarks