The firearm thread

[husaberg]

If they are lying when they said that they would pay market rates prior to the ban then yes it is in the billions. And you can't buy back what you never owned.

I don't want to answer that emotionally charged question.

They're not in the right space for facts to be of use.

You keep saying billions the Gun lobby itself says 500 million, my word, you must know more than them.
The government is paying compensation, its not a free for all, they are not going to pay the brand new value on the secondhand firearms.
I think you will find the victims families are in the exact place you would expect them to be when their family is killed by an idiot with a Semi auto and large capacity magazines.
You seem to think the people who died lives have no value, or your own freedom to own a semi automatic rifle is somehow more important than protecting innocent peoples lives.
Owning a firearm is not a right in NZ, Its a privilege, A privilege that due to the actions of a few, is now being partially revoked.
I think you wll find i you that needs a reality check, as you appear to be affected more by the possible loss of a hobby item than by, multiple other people losing their lives.
Tell me again, how the old gun laws were working well. Write out the fifty letters to the families of the victims, telling them, you feel the gun laws never needed to change.

[RDJ]

Tell me again, how the old gun laws were working well.

Well, lessee.

Govt Immigration ossifers let the evil lunatic in from Oz.

Govt Police ossifers vetted him and gave him a FAL.

Then - he broke the law, actually, many laws, on his murderous outing.

And this is the fault of law-abiding citizens how exactly?

[jasonu]

Well, lessee.

Govt Immigration ossifers let the evil lunatic in from Oz.

Govt Police ossifers vetted him and gave him a FAL.

Then - he broke the law, actually, many laws, on his murderous outing.

And this is the fault of law-abiding citizens how exactly?

But but but National.....

[Cosmik de Bris]

You seem to think the people who died lives have no value, or your own freedom to own a semi automatic rifle is somehow more important than protecting innocent peoples lives.

You're assuming here that these new laws will protect people, that may not be the case. These sort of mass murders are not common in NZ or Australia, 30 odd years between these events don't give a very good idea of how likely it is to happen again. If there is a next time it could be a bomb, truck, flame thrower, no amount of legislation will stop an extremist. There are a lot of barn doors closing in all of these events. If the next person uses a bomb then maybe fertiliser and diesel oil gets banned, that doesn't stop the next guy.

I'm not saying that the new laws aren't needed but that it will save innocent lives is not a good argument in my opinion.

Cheers

[husaberg]

Well, lessee.

Govt Immigration ossifers let the evil lunatic in from Oz.

Govt Police ossifers vetted him and gave him a FAL.

Then - he broke the law, actually, many laws, on his murderous outing.

And this is the fault of law-abiding citizens how exactly?

No slack gun laws and loopholes allowed the cretin to legally accumulate a multiple number of weapons ammunition and large capacity magazines that allowed him to kill people on a scale not seen before in NZ.
These are all things he couldn't have easily cheaply and legally accomplished in Aussie due to their much stricter gun laws.

But but but National.....

i know that shooters on rampages are that common in the US you dont even worry about them now, but National to their credit actually supports the moves.
Why is it Canada has such lower rate of shooting homicides than the US does, could it be the tougher gun laws actually work or are they just better people north of the boarder?

You're assuming here that these new laws will protect people, that may not be the case. These sort of mass murders are not common in NZ or Australia, 30 odd years between these events don't give a very good idea of how likely it is to happen again. If there is a next time it could be a bomb, truck, flame thrower, no amount of legislation will stop an extremist. There are a lot of barn doors closing in all of these events. If the next person uses a bomb then maybe fertiliser and diesel oil gets banned, that doesn't stop the next guy.
I'm not saying that the new laws aren't needed but that it will save innocent lives is not a good argument in my opinion.
Cheers

There are a lot of loopholes closing and there is ample evidence to show that these style of gun laws are safer for the public.
I think you will find there are controls on the types of nitrate fertilizer used in making explosives in NZ there has been for a large number of years.
Canada vs USA
13x lower gun homicide rate is pretty significant.
Our laws laws as they were were rediculas in that higher capacity mags were not to be used in the ar15s SKS and so forth but they were still allowed to be sold to A cat licence holders.
While the gun law changes wont totally eliminate a risk it will minimize it as best as it can.
Like i said firearm ownership is a privilege in NZ not a right.

AS for the Demon lords latest outburst
you are talking bollocks
post the written rules for your claims

[pritch]

The latest version of the Arms Act is stated as being to protect people. The original farearms laws in this country were to protect the politicians. Following the Russian revolution in 1917, the government thought they had better introduce controls on firearms in 1918 in case somebody here decided revolution was a good idea. Of course they had grossly underestimated the apathy of their countrymen.

[TheDemonLord]

AS for the Demon lords latest outburst
you are talking bollocks
post the written rules for your claims

I did...

You even posted some of them yourself.

But don't let reality get in the way of your Narrative.

[TheDemonLord]

Well, lessee.

Govt Immigration ossifers let the evil lunatic in from Oz.

Govt Police ossifers vetted him and gave him a FAL.

Then - he broke the law, actually, many laws, on his murderous outing.

And this is the fault of law-abiding citizens how exactly?

Point of Order - 'Vetting' where he used Referees that only knew him from a Web Forum, and the Trans-Tasman checks are still not a thing...

[TheDemonLord]

You keep saying billions the Gun lobby itself says 500 million, my word, you must know more than them.

It's really important to know when statements were made...

https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/new-...ist-group-says

That was before the new laws were suggested.

It was made under the assumption that Current E-cat holders wouldn't be affected, All the components that could be attached to a Semi-Auto weren't included - The point is: Our Government (just like the Aussie Goverment - oh how quickly people fail to make that comparison when it doesn't suit) is significantly underestimating the cost.

[Scubbo]

[husaberg]

It's really important to know when statements were made...

https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/new-...ist-group-says

That was before the new laws were suggested.

It was made under the assumption that Current E-cat holders wouldn't be affected, All the components that could be attached to a Semi-Auto weren't included - The point is: Our Government (just like the Aussie Goverment - oh how quickly people fail to make that comparison when it doesn't suit) is significantly underestimating the cost.

I am breaking my own rules here but here is a clue

amend the provisions in the principal Act relating to endorsements. Currently an endorsement is required to a firearms licence to enable the licence holder to possess any pistol, restricted weapon, or military style semi-automatic firearm. The amendments replace the references to a military style semi-automatic firearm with references to a prohibited firearm and prohibited magazine. Before making an endorsement, a member of the Police must be satisfied that the applicant is a fit and proper person to be in possession of a prohibited firearm or prohibited magazine, and that it is necessary for the applicant, in their capacity as an exempt person, to have possession of the prohibited firearm or prohibited magazine. Additional criteria apply in respect of exempt persons described in new section 4A(d) to (g). Endorsements are subject to conditions, including that the holder of the firearms licence must possess and use the prohibited firearm or prohibited magazine solely in their capacity as an exempt person.

Clauses 34 to 36 relate to permits to possess a pistol, restricted weapon, or military style semi-automatic firearm. References to a military style semi-automatic firearm are removed from section 35 of the principal Act and a new section 35A is inserted dealing specifically with the issue of a permit to possess a specific prohibited firearm or prohibited magazine. The permit requirements for possessing a prohibited firearm or prohibited magazine are the same as those that currently apply for a military style semi-automatic firearm. A person will need to either have a dealer’s licence or have an endorsement on their firearms licence authorising possession of that category of prohibited item. In either case, the person will also need a permit to possess the specific prohibited firearm or prohibited magazine.

Eight new offences are inserted, as follows:
new section 16(4) provides that it is an offence to import prohibited firearms, prohibited magazines, and prohibited parts without a permit (punishable by imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years):
new section 43AA provides that it is an offence to possess, sell, or supply prohibited ammunition (punishable by imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years):
new sections 44A and 44B provide that it is an offence to knowingly supply or sell a prohibited item to a person who does not hold a permit to import or a permit to possess (punishable by imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years for a prohibited firearm or prohibited magazine, or 2 years for a prohibited part):
new section 50A provides that it is an offence to unlawfully possess a prohibited firearm (punishable by imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years):
new section 50B provides that it is an offence to unlawfully possess a prohibited magazine (punishable by imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years):
new section 50C provides that it is an offence to unlawfully possess a prohibited part (punishable by imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years):
new section 55A provides that it is an offence to assemble a prohibited firearm or to convert a firearm into a prohibited firearm (punishable by imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years):
new section 55B provides that it is an offence to fail to produce a pistol, restricted weapon, prohibited firearm, or prohibited magazine if requested by a member of the Police, or to fail to permit an inspection of it, or of the place where it is kept (punishable by imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 months, or a fine not exceeding $1,000, or both).

Persons who may apply to import, sell, supply, and possess prohibited items
(1)Only the following persons may apply to import, sell, supply, or possess a prohibited item in accordance with the provisions of this Act and in their capacity as—
(a)a licensed dealer:
(b)a bona fide collector of firearms:
(c)a director or curator of a bona fide museum:
(d)an approved person or approved member referred to in section 29(2)(e):
(e)a person who is employed or engaged by the Department of Conservation and involved in the killing or hunting of wild animals or animal pests in accordance with a specified Act:
(f)a person who is the holder of a concession granted by the Minister of Conservation to undertake wild animal recovery operations in accordance with a specified Act:
(g)a person who is employed or engaged by a management agency (as defined in section 100 of the Biosecurity Act 1993) and involved in the killing or hunting of wild animals or animal pests in accordance with that Act.
(2)In subsection (1)(e) and (f), specified Act means—
(a)the Wildlife Act 1953:
(b)the Wild Animal Control Act 1977:
(c)the Conservation Act 1987:
(d)the Biosecurity Act 1993.

1)
An exempt person of or over the age of 18 years, and who is a holder of a firearms licence or is applying for a firearms licence, may apply for an endorsement on their licence permitting them to possess a prohibited firearm or prohibited magazine in their capacity as an exempt person.

As for prohibited parts

2C Meaning of prohibited part
In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires, prohibited part means—
(a)a part of a prohibited firearm:
(b)a component that can be applied to enable, or take significant steps towards enabling, a firearm to be fired with, or near to, a semi-automatic or automatic action.

Now if you cant figure out this there is nothing i can do to help you.
There is also nothing in the draft bill that outlaws any calibre of weapon that complies with the rules.
If you wish to make further outrageous claims, cite the rule as to why you think it means something, because its clear you are behaving in such a hysterical manner.
None of what you have posted is actually contained in the wording of the draft bill
If you fail to do this then launch on another gish gallop and rant of false equivalents that are meaningless to what is in the act you will go straight back on ignore.

[TheDemonLord]

I am breaking my own rules here but here is a clue

Now if you cant figure out this there is nothing i can do to help you.
There is also nothing in the draft bill that outlaws any calibre of weapon that complies with the rules.
If you wish to make further outrageous claims site the rule as to why you think it means something, because its clear you are behaving in such a hysterical manner.

So, you've confirmed - Sport shooting is no longer a valid reason for owning an MSSA - which will Destroy that sport. I'm therefore 100% correct on that.

Next up:

In section 2(1), replace the definition of part with:

part—
(a)

in relation to a pistol or a restricted weapon, includes any thing, such as a butt, stock, magazine, silencer, or sight, that, although not essential for the discharge by a pistol or a restricted weapon of any shot, bullet, missile, or other projectile, is designed, or intended to be, an integral part of the pistol or restricted weapon; and
(b)

in relation to a prohibited firearm, includes any thing, such as a butt, stock, magazine (other than a prohibited magazine), silencer, or sight, that although not essential for the discharge by the prohibited firearm of any shot, bullet, missile, or other projectile, is designed, or intended to be, an integral part of the prohibited firearm; and
(c)

in relation to any other firearm, means the action for that firearm and for any firearm that has upper and lower receivers, includes the upper receiver and lower receiver, whether together or individually; and
(d)

in relation to any firearm, includes any thing, such as bolt carrier group parts, trigger group parts, lower parts kits, barrel, gas block, gas tube, folding or telescoping stock, magazine loader, sub-calibre conversion kits, and carbine stock

Now, given how it is worded - that could be ANY Suppressor or Sight that is capable of being attached to a Semi-Auto (aka a Prohibited Firearm), which means ANY Suppressor or Sight.

So, Suppressors and Optics are now a Prohibited Part. I'm therefore 100% correct on that.

Finally:

Order in Council relating to definitions of prohibited firearm, prohibited magazine, and prohibited ammunition

The Governor-General may, by Order in Council made on the recommendation of the Minister,—
(a)

amend or replace the description in section 2A of a semi-automatic firearm (except a pistol) or pump action shotgun that is a prohibited firearm:
(b)

amend or replace the description in section 2B of a magazine that is a prohibited magazine:
(c)

declare any semi-automatic firearm (except a pistol) or pump-action shotgun of a stated name or description to be a prohibited firearm for the purposes of this Act:
(d)

declare any magazine of a stated name or description to be a prohibited magazine for the purposes of this Act:
(e)

declare any ammunition to be prohibited ammunition for the purposes of this Ac

This has been updated - the first draft wording stated 'Military Ammunition':

Prohibited ammunition will include certain types of military ammunition as defined by the Governor General through Order in Council. Examples could include armour piercing ammunition.

Certain types of Military Ammunition is an exceptionally broad term - and could include the venerable 7.62/5.56 - which are some of the most popular calibres in NZ.

If they've changed it, then fair enough - but the fact is, that WAS what was in the first Draft.

[husaberg]

So, you've confirmed - Sport shooting is no longer a valid reason for owning an MSSA - which will Destroy that sport. I'm therefore 100% correct on that.

Next up:



Now, given how it is worded - that could be ANY Suppressor or Sight that is capable of being attached to a Semi-Auto (aka a Prohibited Firearm), which means ANY Suppressor or Sight.

So, Suppressors and Optics are now a Prohibited Part. I'm therefore 100% correct on that.

Finally:



This has been updated - the first draft wording stated 'Military Ammunition':



Certain types of Military Ammunition is an exceptionally broad term - and could include the venerable 7.62/5.56 - which are some of the most popular calibres in NZ.

If they've changed it, then fair enough - but the fact is, that WAS what was in the first Draft.

Try again back i have never confirmed anything you said in fact i did the opposite.
Sport shooting of any kind is not mentioned in the law.
I am not interested in what you think i am only interesting in educating you what the rules actually say

As for

now, given how it is worded - that could be ANY Suppressor or Sight that is capable of being attached to a Semi-Auto (aka a Prohibited Firearm), which means ANY Suppressor or Sight.

this is incorrect if you read on further it clarifies the intent.

is designed, or intended to be, an integral part of the prohibited firearm

As clearly all silencers or all scopes are clearly not designed to be a integral part of a prohibited weapon you are 100% wrong. if you cant understand, this i cant help you.

You either post the clause in full for each claim you make or i will put you back on ignore, its that simple.

I am not interested in your hysterical machinations on what you think could be, when it is clear, what is in the rules.

Simply put Point to the rules for all you have claimed, such as the banning of all military caibres, the banning of optics, the banning of sport shooting.

[jafagsx250]

It took you all day to do that Edit?



That's not what I said -


Now, seeing as you so kindly quoted the Legislation - "specially licensed dealers, bona fide collectors, museum curators and firearms used during dramatic productions, as there are now." - Can you point to where it states, in that sentance that Sport Shooting (Service Rifle, IPSC, etc.) is a reason for an Exemption?

You can't? Well, My Statement 'Sport Shooting - Gone.' is 100% correct then.

Next up:



"Military Ammunition" - That's a rather Nebulus term, some are interpreting it as Tracer or AP or API ammunition, but it's not defined in the Legislation - It's states that any "Military Ammunition" that is defined by the Order of Council. Which could include the Calibres I listed - as they are "Military Ammunition"



They all fire "Military Ammunition".



That part is Laughable - An Example of something that could turn a Firearm into a Semi or fully automatic Firearm including a Silencer.

On what planet does a Silencer turn a Firearm into a Semi or Fully Automatic Firearm?



The exemptions that allow for Cat-E ownership for the purpose of Sport Shooting have been revoked. Without this, the sport is, by proxy, Banned.



Read it again:



A Sight is an Integral part of Any Firearm.
Any Sight can be fitted to Any restricted or Prohibited Firearm.
Therefore, ANY SIGHT IS NOW A PROHIBITED ITEM.

As for the Silencer - no Suppressor is an Integral part of a Firearm (unless you are including integrally suppressed BARRELS) - so why is it included? Well, that's the problem - since a Suppressor that fits onto a Semi-Auto ALSO fits onto a Bolt-action rifle - Guess what? It's now a Prohibited item



No Great Loss? Apart from the Business this will ruin, Individuals that are Criminalised - I had a chat with my CEO today, he's got an Air-Rifle - his scope fits on my AR - guess what? He's now a Criminal according to this piss-poor legislation.

But worst of all - Not a single thing mentioned as to the application process that would have prevented this Terrorist attack if they were followed.

Online Referees are still okay.
Trans-Tasman Background checks still non-existent.
No Changes for the reporting to the Police that someone may no longer be a 'Fit and Proper person'
No Mental Health Checks required for Licencees.

Yup. Useful reform will never happen. Police too fixated on the most law abiding section of society.

You keep saying billions the Gun lobby itself says 500 million, my word, you must know more than them.
The government is paying compensation, its not a free for all, they are not going to pay the brand new value on the secondhand firearms.
I think you will find the victims families are in the exact place you would expect them to be when their family is killed by an idiot with a Semi auto and large capacity magazines.
You seem to think the people who died lives have no value, or your own freedom to own a semi automatic rifle is somehow more important than protecting innocent peoples lives.
Owning a firearm is not a right in NZ, Its a privilege, A privilege that due to the actions of a few, is now being partially revoked.
I think you wll find i you that needs a reality check, as you appear to be affected more by the possible loss of a hobby item than by, multiple other people losing their lives.
Tell me again, how the old gun laws were working well. Write out the fifty letters to the families of the victims, telling them, you feel the gun laws never needed to change.

They are banning parts. And all Semis. There's hundreds of thousands of them out there. And all the parts.

If they want them they'll have it pay what they were worth before the shooting. It'll be an astronomical amount.

They did work. The cops fucked up big time like last time in 1990. The magazine law was stupid. All Semis apart from the 4 round mag capacity hunting rifles should have been on E.

I would if I had their addresses. And if social justice warriors didn't try to crucify me.

I am breaking my own rules here but here is a clue







As for prohibited parts



Now if you cant figure out this there is nothing i can do to help you.
There is also nothing in the draft bill that outlaws any calibre of weapon that complies with the rules.
If you wish to make further outrageous claims, cite the rule as to why you think it means something, because its clear you are behaving in such a hysterical manner.
None of what you have posted is actually contained in the wording of the draft bill
If you fail to do this then launch on another gish gallop and rant of false equivalents that are meaningless to what is in the act you will go straight back on ignore.

The order in council can state whatever they want as prohibited ammunition. 308 Winchester and 223 Remington are slightly different to 7.62 nato and 5.56 nato. But would be banned if they chose to.

Try again back i have never confirmed anything you said in fact i did the opposite.
Sport shooting of any kind is not mentioned in the law.
I am not interested in what you think i am only interesting in educating you what the rules actually say

As for



this is incorrect if you read on further it clarifies the intent.

As clearly all silencers or all scopes are clearly not designed to be a integral part of a prohibited weapon you are 100% wrong. if you cant understand, this i cant help you.

You either post the clause in full for each claim you make or i will put you back on ignore, its that simple.

I am not interested in your hysterical machinations on what you think could be, when it is clear, what is in the rules.

Simply put Point to the rules for all you have claimed, such as the banning of all military caibres, the banning of optics, the banning of sport shooting.

Sport shooting exclusively uses semi automatic rifles. As opposed to limited uses of bolt actions.

You know stuff all about guns. Otherwise you'd have known this. And why would we want to be "educated" by a gun grabber. When all you seem to want to do is take them away as opposed to thinking of what will actually work.

[TheDemonLord]

Try again back i have never confirmed anything you said in fact i did the opposite.
Sport shooting of any kind is not mentioned in the law.

No shit Fuckwit - That means it's not a valid reason for Exemption. Since Sport shooting uses Semi-Autos, It is now Banned.

As for

this is incorrect if you read on further it clarifies the intent.

As clearly all silencers or all scopes are clearly not designed to be a integral part of a prohibited weapon you are 100% wrong. if you cant understand, this i cant help you.

All Sights are an Integral Part of a Firearm. They are also designed to be part of a Prohibited Weapon (Common Mounting options are a thing). So because of Sloppy wording it covers all Sights/Optics.

As for Suppressors (Silencers only exist in the Movies...) There are none that are Integral, unless you mean integrally suppressed Barrels - which is a little bit different. Again, Sloppy Wording by including a part that is not Integral into the list of Integral parts has opened up the clause to some extremely broad interpretation.

You either post the clause in full for each claim you make or i will put you back on ignore, its that simple.

I am not interested in your hysterical machinations on what you think could be, when it is clear, what is in the rules.

Simply put Point to the rules for all you have claimed, such as the banning of all military caibres, the banning of optics, the banning of sport shooting.

I did. I've acknowledged that the act now no-longer says 'Military Calibres' (The internet is a wonderful thing, that has a long memory), however the fact that with an Undemocratic process ANY Ammunition can be rendered prohibited (And that could mean all Ammunition of a Calibre) then it still stands.

The rest, is simply for you to Read. By no longer allowing Sport Shooting as a reason for owning a Cat-E rifle, the Sport is, by proxy, Banned.
By stating Sights as an Integral part of a prohibited Firearm, they have (through sloppy wording) banned Optics/Sights - unless they amend the legislation to clarify what they mean. I suspect they simply mean something like an AR front-post sight/gasblock - but that's not what they've said.