Monday, June 29, 2009

Application for judical review / statement of claim

NOTICE OF APPLICATION FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW

TAKE NOTICE that on the day of 2009 at oclock in the or as soon thereafter as the parties can be heard, The above named applicant will move this Honourable Court at Palmerston North on judicial review of an administrative decision of the New Zealand Police.

The Plaintiff says

1. During the week beginning 1 June 2009 the defendant conducted a review and consequently “reclassified” particular firearms.

2. The defendant subsequently wrote an advisory to Police Arms Officers and Arms Dealers stating that they had reclassified, in particular, Heckler and Koch SL8-4 sporting rifles and that this make and model of firearm was now classified as a military style semi-automatic firearm for the purposes of section 2 of the Arms Act 1983.

3. A “montage” was included in the defendant’s written advisory which includes an image of a Heckler and Koch SL8-4 thumbhole butt stock.

4. The defendant claims in the advisory that the Heckler and Koch SL8-4 sporting rifle has a military pattern free standing pistol grip within the terms of section 2 of the Arms Act 1983.

5. The Plaintiff claims that the Heckler and Koch SL8-4 sporting rifle does not have a “military pattern free standing pistol grip” but instead it has a “thumbhole stock”. The defendant’s interpretation of a military pattern free standing pistol grip as it has been applied to the Heckler and Koch SL8-4 sporting rifle is factually incorrect.

THE PLAINTIFF THEREFORE CLAIMS

(a) A declaration that;

1. the Heckler and Koch SL8-4 sporting rifle does not have a military pattern free standing pistol grip for the purposes of section 2 of the Arms Act 1983, and

2. that the defendant was in error to reclassify the Heckler and Koch SL8-4 sporting rifle as a military style semi-automatic firearm for the purposes of section 2 of the Arms Act 1983, and

3. that the Heckler and Koch SL8-4 sporting rifle is an ‘A’ category firearm for the purposes of the Arms Act 1983, and possession and control thereof does not require an ‘E’ category endorsement pursuant to section 30 of the Arms Act 1983.

(b) The costs of an incidental to this proceeding.

4 comments:

Anonymous said...

Well done Richard ..... is there any reason all previously A cat butts ... eg. Choate, ATI, Bell & Carlson and Draganov et al style stocks are not also included in your application?

Anonymous said...

This action is framed to H&K SL8s only because I dont want to get into a long complex battle about what is / and what is not a military pattern free standing pistol grip. There is a clear distinction (as can be see below) with regard to the SL8 stock and a pistol grip. The SL8 has never been issued as a military service rifle (most / all of the others on the Police "montage" have been used at one point or other for military service. The SL8 was designed specifically by H&K as a civilian issue rifle. The SL8 is listed on the Police website as an A CAT firearm and is specifically referred to in the Police advisory. A clear and concise arguement is easier to deal with than a muddy pond of full of anything from aluminium connector bars through to questions about what the heck a "military pattern" is?

Cheers
R

Anonymous said...

and ... to add to that... the SL8 is as it was built in the factory.. it is not retrofitted.
Cheers
R

Anonymous said...

That's what I figured you were doing Richard .... my SLR did not leave SAF Lithgow in it's current configuration but it too complies with the existing cosmetic based law.