Monday, 17 August 2009


And bloody good job. We are all in favour of people owning guns for sport or to hunt with, but military style weapons should not be normalised as regular and ok weapons.

According to the article in the Herald ,Inspector Joe Green, police national manager of firearms licensing and vetting, says police are requiring extra checks for these types of weapons and they have had strong support from some respected quarters.

The stricter E-class endorsement did involve more stringent checks in which police were looking for the "Rambo-type attitude", he said.

Mr Green said the process had received a positive response from the Mountain Safety Council and Deerstalkers' Association and many firearms owners were applying for the E-class endorsement.

Its is going to involve some extra paperwork and cost but that's ok with us.

Now it maybe right that this wont have stopped the likes of the Molenaar tragedy but what it will do is say that these guns are not recognised for either hunting or target shooting. they are purely for guys with wee dicks and gangsta aspirations.


Anonymous said...

Actually, there is a place for some E-class firearms for some types of hunting.

An A-class semi-automatic firearm can become an E-class firearm by using a larger magazine. For example, a .223 semi-automatic A-Cat rifle can only have a magazine with a capacity of 7 rounds. If a larger capacity magazine (say 15 rounds) is used with that same rifle it becomes an E-Cat rifle. This rifle with the larger capacity magazine would be ideal for goat culling in the right environment. So there is a place for this type of weapon.

However, I recognize that the quoted article is referring to a different type of modification - that of a pistol grip, and that a rifle set up in this way is unlikely to be a hunting rifle (although could be used as such).

Redbaiter said...

What pseudo liberal crap. You'll wish you had a gun when this whole Progressive artifice collapses and the Black Power gang is at your door with no cops to stop them.

James said...

By what right does the State have to tell me or anyone what they may own or how its modified?

Until there is objective evidence of a crime against the rights of others being planned,or having been committed, then they should butt out.

Anonymous said...

Unfortunately Busted Blond you are way off track on this one. Typical Granny Herald didn't actually tell the full story. This is just another case of the Police trying top be 'seen to be doing something' (tm) following another botch up.

The botch up is the Napier incident where an individual with an E category firearms licence did not renew and the police did not follow up to see what had happened to his guns. Note: Molinaar was already breaking the law in holding the firearms he had. No amount of amendments to the law will change that.

What the Police have now done is obtained an OPINION from the Crown Law office that allows them to change the way they have been administering the 1993 Arms Amendment Act. The Act said if you had a free standing pistol grip it was an E category firearm. The interpretation was if there was a thumbhole stock (or similar) ie. without a freestanding pistol grip then it was an A category firearm. Please note this is all about cosmetic appearance not functionality.

There are a number of issues here. The major one is Police hierarchy making the law up as they go along. That's parliament's role.

Secondly the unintended outcome of this is it will drive more firearms underground as people will not bother to pay $1,000 plus for additional security for what is a change in interpretation of the cosmetic look of a firearm.

It shows yet again how removed from reality the police head office is. A surefire case of dumb and dumber.

You inadvertantly hit the issue on the head. It is the person (Rambo's) that is the problem not the gun. If police got off thier asses and effectively policed current law there would be no need to bring in more stupid laws that continue to bring about unintended consequences that require more stupid law to be 'seen to be doing somthing' (tm).


MikeE said...

BB, this is a situation where you clearly have no idea what you are talking about.

How on earth does a pistol grip, flash suppressor or half the other mods on a MSSA make it any more dangerous than a .22.

Oswald Bastable said...

There are quite a few that shoot Service rifle matches, using military firearms.

A lot of ex-services types like myself quite enjoy having a blat with an SLR and reliving old days.

Nothing sinister to see here.

gravedodger said...

As a person who enjoys owning and still, when circumstances permit using, my collection of weapons, and have in the past given my time to the inspection side of enforcing the arms laws of this country. I find that these latest changes are no more than an infringement and frustratingly expensive exploitation of law abiding gun owners. When I purchased my first weapon a semi auto browning 12 ga (still in mint condition and ready) I had to first get a police permit, present that to the arms dealer,purchase the weapon and then present that weapon to plod for inspection and recording of serial number. In those days showing any proficiency was not required. On purchasing subsequent weapons I was required to repeat the process, and so on. This was all done without anything more than plods notebook uniform whistle and manual filing system. All changes of address and ownership were the responsibility of the gun owner and plod had a full record of weapons in his district and compliance was very universal. Now with all the computor power to hand unless one is a dealer or collector plod has no idea of what weapons are in legal ownership and the illegals are mind blowing. Inspections under licence renewal only relate to attitude and stability of the applicant and the security of storage offered.
The whole system is less than useful as notification of medical/psychiatric problems and arms licences have no link that I am aware of. The approved storage is of no consequence to a determined perp. There is no register of legally owned weapons. The plod response to surrendered weapons is destruction and the colossal waste of sometimes beautiful weapons and the value of same. And as pointed out above the stupid and ineffectual changes will do nothing to improve compliance and will in reality reduce it