reclassification of MSSA

[JD Kid]

kinda that outlaw guns only outlaws have guns  ..

can't recall the cartoon  but shows  people on a shooting range with  slingshots and bows and arrows   in the back ground  there is a heap of cop car's   chaseing a car  loaded up with masked  fellas in it  stacked with guns ..
may have been in an ozzie gun shop  i saw it tho

[Ray Exe]

This is a shambles, isn't it?

Had a chat with Jason recently. Not very illuminating...

There's clearly no rigorous definition of the configuration of the grip, so the size of an allowed thumb-hole seems to be a matter of opinion: but who's opinion?

It will not be a mere formality to get an E endorsement - one will need to have a good reason to own such a weapon. Bunny-busting, and personal preference for grip style isn't good enough, even for a little .22.

There must be thousands of now-illegally-held "new-style MSSAs". I'd guess that a substantial proportion of their owners won't want to apply for an E cat, or will be refused. So what happens to their guns? Presumably the market for these will be much, much smaller than it was, and commercial disposal will be difficult. The value of the rifles will drop through the floor. However, you might get a reasonable price from your friendly neighbourhood gang member...

[McLovin]

I can understand the reasoning for things like an SLR or the various Siaga AK variants, but why my Ruger 10/22? I mean seriously, military style and .22 don't really go together do they?

On another note, just *asking* nicely for people to hand over or convert "new style MSSA's" is likely to result in low adoption rate for the new regulations. There is no way of knowing who has what on an A-Cat nowadays, so how exactly is this going to be enforced? I was told that I either converted my Ruger back to the standard stock, handed it in for destruction or applied for an E license. Here's the problem, as I see it, with this approach:

A: I paid about $150 for the stock, and it has not been a problem up until now. the gun holds no more bullets than it used to and is no more or less dangerous with the target stock on it. Its purely a cosmetic change. What is the point here? Without some sort of decent logic or reason to do this apart from "If you don't, thou shalt be spanked", I can't see that many people following Nike's example and Just doing it.

B: I'm unwilling to hand over a $4-500 gun for destruction with no compensation whatsoever.

C: I don't want to pay $1000 for an E-cat safe only to be able to store firearms that I already own in it.

In my personal scenario, I had kept the old stock and have since refitted the gun back to its original factory default. Problem solved in my case, without too much hassle. However, i'm sure there are people out there who will not be able to fix this problem so easily. I'm not willing to risk my license or endorsements over a rifle that has sat around barely used for the past 7 years. Without some sort of financial incentive to hand in these stocks for destruction, they will simply be traded on to less scrupulous people. I would have been happy to hand the stock in for destruction if I had been given a fair second hand market rate for it, or even something remotely close to it. It's been done overseas when the laws have been changed in similar circumstances, so why not here? Overseas, firearms law changes are generally government policy related, not reinterpretation of existing legislation. Maybe, just maybe, we have our old friends at a certain Barbadoes St retailer to thank for this most recent reinterpretation of the law.

I do understand the need for some of the rifles that have been fitted with coathanger wire between the grip and stock to be disposed of or reclassified, but seriously - why the Ruger 10/22? Can't someone sit down and figure out which rifles should be effected by this law change? AK: E-cat, AR-15: E-cat, SLR: E-cat, Ruger 10/22: A-CAT!!!

[Ray Exe]

Exactly!

I forgot to say that when I spoke to Jason, I asked why rifles with pistol grips or, particularly, holes in the butt, were considered so dangerous. Apparently, the police are worried by the prospect of some idiot running amok, shooting the thing with one hand. Well, OK, that scares me too, but not much more than the same idiot with a 'conventional' semi-auto rifle. Just how many single-handed rifle shootings have there been here, anyway?

If the police make up or change the rules as they think fit, isn't this what happens in a police state?

There is no room in a good judicial system for bad laws.

[Gavin Melville]

What really, really frightens me is not the guns -- be they MSSA's or sporting rifles.

It's how little understanding you guys have of the wider public perception, and why this is all happening.

[Ray Exe]

Gavin, I think I have a fair understanding of the 'wider public perception'.

The 'wider public', bless 'em, tend not to (want to) think for themselves, but just soak up manufactured opinion fed to them by the media, to which pressure groups and sensationalists have disproportionally easy access. Furthermore, politicians and organisations charged with the responsibility for 'ensuring' safety (if only that were possible!) have to be seen to be doing something, in order to justify their interference in the lives of the 'wider public'. This leads to quick, knee-jerk, ill-thought-through action, which is typically an over-reaction, calculated to win the approbation of the 'wider public', whilst demonising the tiny population advertised as causing the problem. This is what happened in UK after Dunblane and Hungerford. The 'wider public' still think the pistol ban was a good thing and forget that gun crime has risen by a factor of ten since the ban!

You can't rely on the 'wider public', fed with pre-manufactured opinion and fired by manufactured indignation, to have any common sense.

You can't rely on politicians to do anything which might damage their chances of re-election, and therefore short-term-ism will prevail.

One might hope that the police, in the unenviable position of being caught in the middle, might act with more common sense and pragmatism. What is worrying is that the police force is showing signs of going autonomous or accepting political dogma.

The objection to this law change is the stupidity of not considering the consequences, as eloquently expounded above.

[Cosmik de Bris]

Apparently, the police are worried by the prospect of some idiot running amok, shooting the thing with one hand.

I like to see the size of the guy that can hold up an SL8 with one hand.

[Gavin Melville]

I was at a dinner a few years back with the PNZ people and one senior Police Officer.   His view on this was quite illuminating -- the perception of MSSA's by the public -- it's either an AK47 or an M16.  The images of both of those are that of terrorists/freedom fighters/mass murderers holding them up in defiance -- regardless of the reality.   From the people outside the firearms community that I talk to that is how they see them.   They are afraid of firearms in general, but military rifles evoke a stronger reaction.   There is little we can do to overcome the 50 years of that image being burnt into their shape memory, and trying probably makes it worse.

[McLovin]

But yeah, your not wrong on that one. It would be difficult to watch the news without seeing images of either an AK or M-16.

[Ray Exe]

I quite believe the ignorant public have allowed themselves to be brainwashed the way Gavin describes, but what has that to do with bringing a whole swag of other, non-military rifles into 'E' cat? Also, when does the public get told that these regulations will inevitably lead to an increase in the number of dangerous weapons illegally held? When they wake up to this, won't they associate guns even more strongly with criminality?

Bad laws do no-one any good.

[Cosmik de Bris]

Ray, the public will never know the consequences of these new regulations, nor do they want too. The politicians and the police don't want them to know either, it will only stop then from executing their agenda about which, we can only make educated guesses. Politics, with it short term goals, will never have any reason to it. It is all about image. This is all about the slow erosion of firearm owners rights. Right now people are registering all sorts of semi-automatic rifles, soon they will be registering ordinary semi-autos, next bolt-action rifles that look too much like sniper rifles and so on. Once the whereabouts of all these rifles are known it is easy to ban them, and because we are law abiding we will surrender them. Of course as has been shown in the British Isles this will make no difference to the gun related crime, but our government may be re-elected, because of the public perception. That is all that is important.

Cheers

[Gavin Melville]

I believe that this is the root of this issue.   As far as the wider perception, and the Police view, "If it looks like an MSSA then it is", and MSSA's are associated with bad things.  Osama Bin Laden doesn't have an AK47 visible somewhere in every released video for fun or need -- it's intended to evoke a carefully calculated reaction.  Is that the correct reaction -- for the non-firearms community -- yes.   Mr & Mrs voting NZ citizen doesn't remember our last 3 Gun match, but they sure remember David Gray, and nothing we do can change that.  We can (and are) however making it worse.

The thumbhole "thing" was always going to end in tears -- it was simply a way for those who wanted an MSSA to get one without being vetted, and without suitable security, and a very good question is -- why?.   If you are a genuine 3 Gun competitor then buy into the whole E endorsement process, get vetted, and get correct security.  Does anyone really want to see an AR15 fastened into a cupboard with a bicycle lock ?.
 
I spoke to a CPC member 2 weekends ago who has an AR10 .308 flat top with a toothbrush screwed to the stock and the pistol grip.   I actually queried if it was a piece of coathanger -- nope -- toothbrush.   If that wasn't exploiting a loophole then what was.   I do have some sympathy for those with SL8's, but this isn't really what this is about -- they just got caught up in the "net".

If we want to continue 3 Gun competition then it's in our interests to remove (or not use) loopholes, make vetting as rigorous and tight as it can be, keep all our guns safe from theft and keep our heads down.

[Ray Exe]

Where is this up to? When will judgement be given on the Palmerston North challenge? The various blogs, etc. seem to have gone suspiciously silent...

[Cosmik de Bris]

We are waiting for the judge (I forget her name) to release her judgment on the issue. She certainly was impressive in her quest for information and asked plenty of pertinent questions. Various rifles of different configurations were presented to her and she seemed to have appreciated the both sides of the argument. I think the judgment is expected in the two weeks. All my IMHO of course.

Cheers

[JayDee]

The Reserved decission was not delivered before christmas - so everything is still 'in limbo' - so much so that someone has been told that the Arms Officers are no longer processing 'E' cat endorsement requests or Eeeeing of affected Ayys now - until the outcome of the Judicial review is known.

Goodness only knows how many "Easy Eees" have been processed already ... or to what extent the whole 'E' category regieme has been affected.

The phrase -"Unintended consequences" does spring to mind (along with "inconsequential opinion" !!)