The firearm thread

[pritch]

"3. What semi-automatic firearms are affected by today’s Order in Council?
Two types of firearms are now defined as Military Style Semi-Automatics (MSSAs):
• A semi-automatic firearm capable of being used with a detachable magazine which holds more than five cartridges
• A semi-automatic shotgun capable of being used with a detachable magazine which holds more than five cartridges"

That's badly written. It covers rather more than was stated to be the intention. In the fullness of time...

[husaberg]

"3. What semi-automatic firearms are affected by today’s Order in Council?
Two types of firearms are now defined as Military Style Semi-Automatics (MSSAs):
• A semi-automatic firearm capable of being used with a detachable magazine which holds more than five cartridges
• A semi-automatic shotgun capable of being used with a detachable magazine which holds more than five cartridges"

That's badly written. It covers rather more than was stated to be the intention. In the fullness of time...

You need to read it with the bit that is above it.
What semi-automatic firearms will NOT be affected by the ban?
There is a balance to be struck between public safety and legitimate use. The changes exclude two general classes of firearms which are commonly used for hunting, pest control, stock management on farms, and duck shooting:
• Semi-automatic .22 calibre rimfire firearms with a magazine which holds no more than ten rounds
• Semi-automatic and pump action shotguns with a non-detachable tubular magazine which holds no more than five rounds.

Note how the orders covers shotguns, contrary to what swoops says they ARE CLEARLY COVERED.

READ IT YOURSELF HERE
http://www.legislation.govt.nz/regul...est/whole.html

[pritch]

You need to read it with the bit that is above it.

I did read it, and it doesn't get any better. My concern is not something that has already been mentioned in this thread. Whoever wrote that was not knowledgeable about that which they wrote. Michael Webster signed it, he needs a kick up the arse. On the basis that we should not ascribe to malice that which can adequately be attributed to stupidity I'll leave it there.

Time will tell.

[husaberg]

I did read it, and it doesn't get any better. My concern is not something that has already been mentioned in this thread. Whoever wrote that was not knowledgeable about that which they wrote. Michael Webster signed it, he needs a kick up the arse. On the basis that we should not ascribe to malice that which can adequately be attributed to stupidity I'll leave it there.

Time will tell.

So whats you issue? all thats been done is extend the definition of what is a MSSA nothing else has been changed.

Certain semi-automatic firearms declared to be military style semi-automatic firearms.


For the purposes of the Arms Act 1983, the following firearms are declared to be military style semi-automatic firearms:
(a)a semi-automatic firearm that is capable of being used in combination with a detachable magazine (other than one designed to hold 0.22-inch or less rimfire cartridges) that is capable of holding more than 5 cartridges:
(b)a semi-automatic firearm that is a shotgun and that is capable of being used in combination with a detachable magazine that is capable of holding more than 5 cartridges.

[pritch]

So whats you issue? all thats been done is extend the definition of what is a MSSA nothing else has been changed.

When reading legislation you can't just read what you think it means. You can't read what they might have meant. You have to read what is actually written, and what is written is not what we were told was intended.

That could either be a mistake or something more sinister.

Like I said, we'll see.

[husaberg]

When reading legislation you can't just read what you think it means. You can't read what they might have meant. You have to read what is actually written, and what is written is not what we were told was intended.

That could either be a mistake or something more sinister.

Like I said, we'll see.

Unlike say Swoop i have read it.
I don't believe it is anything but clear on what it means , Also what is the intent is nor do i see it is anything in it that is not exactly as it was described.
What is in there that makes you feel it was miss-described
What you need to bear i mind this reclassification only effects one class of licencee here.
But it more effects those that were selling materials such as magazines that changed the class of firearms.

No one is asking Tippet if he sold the large capacity magazines for the Ar15's used Hes certainly not saying he didn't sell them to the numbnuts.
The order of council only applies to A cat and to what is defined as a MSSA

[jafagsx250]

Think again, the gun licence system is already 50% propped up by the tax payer in NZ as it is.
The average of $12 a year is not enough.
Why does the tax payer need to support the gun licence costs and administration?
The right wing ideals of the NRA, are for user pays for bang bang.
Shooting in NZ is a recreational activity for 99.9% of the licence holders.



If its for a purely recreational activity for a small percentage of the population why would the greater proportion of tax payers want or be expected to fund it.
MNZ competition licences are not proped up by the government, nor are Cams licences for those you wish to race cars.
Or even for explosives licences they are user pays.
We have hunting agencies like fish and game that promote this.
Its the Same with DOC hunting permits



https://www.doc.govt.nz/parks-and-re...unting-permit/

Please can someone put me straight on this?

My only semi-auto rifle is a cheap and nasty Norinco SKS (7.62 x 39), on a fancy Dragunov stock, telescopic sight, with bi-pod and magazines that only hold 5 rounds.

As it doesn't have a pistol grip and doesn't fire more than 7 shots, I consider this gun to still be legal for a CAT A licence holder?

No they will ban it too. Any centrefire semi automatic will not be allowed on an A license.

She did what any of us could have done, looked sincere & said a few things. Nothing I couldn't have pulled with plausibility, and punished all gun owners using the high emotion of the country as a platform.
She's had it served up on a platter to pander to the gullible once again.

Yup. Bodies weren't even cold and they decided to do it.

That will come as news to a generation of soldiers who did exactly that - and who remember the SLR fondly.

When the first round of licencing under Bank's regime finished, research could have been undertaken to see who had not renewed their licence and why. That would have required resources though, and none were made available so nothing was done.
An arms amnesty was announced, even though there was already an arms amnesty in progress at the time. And that was that.

The arms amnesty is always under broadcasted. Most people don't know their even is one.

The cops don't follow up on expired licenses now. Not neough resources.

This is NZ, where the minority (or an exceptionally small group) is overly represented... You should be well aware of this.


I take it you have read the order in council? I also wonder how many people have compared the police document being bandied around on "what is now law", which misleads the public in a very impressive manner. Shotguns are specifically NOT mentioned in the OiC, yet plod propaganda screams "register now!".

Now, for the cut & paste onslaught.

Yeah I have had to correct a fair few sjw about it. Pumps are also mentioned but by law but they are not banned or restricted in mag size.

I'm with Husaberg on this one.

Owning a military style semi auto, if you're a civilian, just got a whole lot harder... and this is a GOOD THING. We need this. All of us, yes even you DemonLord.

Your right to tool up all tactical and have bang bang fun is small. The rest of us having a right to public safety is large. The gun lobby is going to lose. Good.

I quite like living in a society where I don't have to worry about random nutters carrying out rampages, don't you? Or at least it was like that until two weeks ago.

Public safety won't be improved. Everywhere a ban has been put in place there has been huge amounts of gun crime.


Also funny how everyone says the gun lobby has no place in the debate. Hardly a debate without two sides. How are you going to get the technical information when gun grabbers know bugger all about them.

[husaberg]

No they will ban it too. Any centrefire semi automatic will not be allowed on an A license.

What do you base that on then because it says different. it only excluded ones with detachable mags capable of being fitted with a detachable mag that holds more than 5 shot mags.
Can you not read? or are you just trying to scare up some more paranoia?

(a)a semi-automatic firearm that is capable of being used in combination with a detachable magazine (other than one designed to hold 0.22-inch or less rimfire cartridges) that is capable of holding more than 5 cartridges:

[Katman]

Can you not read?

You're hardly in any position to question anyone else's ability to understand and communicate basic English.

[husaberg]

You're hardly in any position to question anyone else's ability to understand and communicate basic English.

Really what does the Arms (Military Style Semi-automatic Firearms) Order 2019 mean then?
Go on, hurl the full force of your mediocre intellect at it

[Katman]

Go on, hurl the full force of your mediocre intellect at it

I'm not the one hurling anything.

[TheDemonLord]

I'm with Husaberg on this one.

Owning a military style semi auto, if you're a civilian, just got a whole lot harder... and this is a GOOD THING. We need this. All of us, yes even you DemonLord.

Okay, Define 'Harder'.

I'm being very serious on this - Because the word from the Government is not 'Harder' but 'Impossible' (when read alongside accompanying statements). I'm not okay with this.

However, I am on board with increased oversight for the privilege of ownership. When you say Harder - I want you to ask yourself, what level of oversight would you accept where you would feel comfortable with Me retaining my legally purchased Firearms?

Yearly Mental Health checks?
Firearms register?
Additional Scrutiny in the application process?

I ask this question, because if the answer is 'nothing' - then you don't want 'Harder' do you? Then the followup question - presumably you are okay with the Police having access to Firearms, so I ask this:

The Police are humans, just like me - what is it specifically that they do that makes you feel safe with their ownership, that could not be extended to me?

Your right to tool up all tactical and have bang bang fun is small. The rest of us having a right to public safety is large. The gun lobby is going to lose. Good.

So you're okay with the increase in the cost of DoC, increased use of Poisons, destroying our sporting communities, ruining lawful businesses, The huge cost of a Buy Back (100-200 Million is laughably low, conservative estimates from the Firearms community put the value nearer a Billion dollars, with some putting the value closer to 2 Billion).

And for what? You say Public Safety - if you wanted to make a dent in Public safety here's a few things you should ban that Yearly kill far more people than Firearms, even IF we had a Christchurch Style massacre every year:

Cars.
Alcohol.
Tobacco.
Swimming.
DIY.

The attack that inspired the Terrorist was carried out with a Truck and killed more people in a Shorter space of time - are you wanting to Ban Trucks as well? What about Aircraft? Fertilizer? Knives? All of those have been used in Terrorist attacks that killed more people.

The reason I chose an AR was not because of it's 'tactical' nature - but because I'm new to Hunting, I didn't grow up on a Farm - I was working on bringing my Marksmanship up to par, but I wanted the insurance policy of being able to take a followup shot in case I merely wounded the Animal - so I decided on a Semi-Auto. Once I decided on a Semi-Auto, given the large aftermarket support, the AR was the clear choice for being able to customise it to my preference.

I quite like living in a society where I don't have to worry about random nutters carrying out rampages, don't you? Or at least it was like that until two weeks ago.

Then you should go live by yourself - Isolated from Society, since that is the only way to ensure that a Random Nutter won't go on a Rampage. The harsh reality is that any sufficiently motivated person WILL find a way to go on a Rampage - We've seen it in countries that Banned Firearms, so I ask you: If banning Firearms won't stop random nutters going on a Rampage, what is it that we should do?

[husaberg]

I'm not the one hurling anything.

I can see why you thought you might know something about the subject when i suggested his answer was to do with paranoia, But unfortunately that wasn't the subject.
It would be hard for you to be able to hurl your intellect, much akin to attempting throwing other lightweight objects such as feathers.
maybe, you might be better served sticking to subjects you have more experience and interest in, such as coprofilia.
https://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/s...ld-take-a-dump

[OddDuck]

DemonLord - look, this is a total waste of my time, getting into an argument with you. You've got your mind made up. I can see that.

Check out something called Cognitive Bias - basically it's that trick in human psychology where if you've got an idea in your head, and other people argue against it, that idea gets more firmly embedded. Whatever the idea is. Could be right, could be wrong, doesn't matter. Argue against it and it gets set down good and hard.

Hence many many pages of back and forth shouting matches, on KB at least. Notice how just about nobody ever actually says something like Yeah Okay You've Got A Point around here? Instead they piss evening after evening away in front of a screen when they could be out having a life.

Look, what's said on KB ultimately doesn't matter. Right? This isn't Parliament is it? So they'll do what they're going to do, we'll live under it (whatever it turns out to be), and life will go on.

[TheDemonLord]

DemonLord - look, this is a total waste of my time, getting into an argument with you. You've got your mind made up. I can see that.

Check out something called Cognitive Bias - basically it's that trick in human psychology where if you've got an idea in your head, and other people argue against it, that idea gets more firmly embedded. Whatever the idea is. Could be right, could be wrong, doesn't matter. Argue against it and it gets set down good and hard.

Hence many many pages of back and forth shouting matches, on KB at least. Notice how just about nobody ever actually says something like Yeah Okay You've Got A Point around here? Instead they piss evening after evening away in front of a screen when they could be out having a life.

Look, what's said on KB ultimately doesn't matter. Right? This isn't Parliament is it? So they'll do what they're going to do, we'll live under it (whatever it turns out to be), and life will go on.

Then you missed the point...

You don't say you want to Ban, you say you want things to be Harder - what is (to you) an acceptable degree of hardness? Is there a hoop I could jump through where you would be okay with it?
You say you want Safety, but it seems more that you want the feeling of safety, as opposed to accepting that society is inherently Unsafe.

Consider this - Wanting to get rid of something that makes you feel unsafe: If you travel far enough down that road, You'll eventually meet the Terrorist.