The way I see the changes are the police are trying to get a grip on how many unregistered semiautos are out.as a law abiding gun owner whats wrong with having to have the appropriate endorsements to own one of these .its to easy at the moment to buy a saiga with druganov stock or an h&k sl8-4 as examples legally as a cat making this an unregistered rifle.then you can buy without any license at all a 30 shot clip yes you are breaking the law when you put the two together but that's how easy it is for the non law abiding owner to get an assault type rifle.with the changes the police want to make it then means that they will no where these weapons are as law abiding gun owners is this really a bad thing.
Let me try an answer questions…
as a law abiding gun owner whats wrong with having to have the appropriate endorsements to own one of these .
I assume you mean an E endorsement? Well the Police don't just hand these out. They are hard to get and require the cost of extra security. There are severe restrictions over where and how you may use an E cat firearm. Generally you will not be able to obtain such an endorsement for sporting purposes (read the police policy guidelines on my website) Even if the Police did get their way, that still doesn't stop anyone from buying, say, a conventionally furnished mini-14 and retrofitting a pistol grip – Neither the non-mssa semi's or the retrofit gear (which is still legal on a non-semi) will disappear off the market. The criminals will make use of what-ever is on the market – even if that means breaking the law by assembling it into an illegal configuration. So the argument, that it solves that problem, is invalid.
The law, which is a reflection of the voice of the citizens of this country (a democracy), determines what firearms we are legally permitted to own and use and how those are classified. Under the current law we are allowed semi automatic rifles. We are allowed to have semi-auto's that have a pistol grip in a sporting configuration. That is the law. What we are not allowed is to have a free standing (that is structurally without additional support) pistol grip that comes from a military pattern firearm (that is a firearm that was built to military specifications for the use of the military). If there is a need for a change in that law, that change can only be made by Parliament (remember who they are…." the voice of the citizens of this country (a democracy)" It is not up to the Police to deliberately misinterpret the law to suit whatever their agenda is from time to time.
The way I see the changes are the police are trying to get a grip on how many unregistered semiautos are out.
If you read the Police policy statement on the sidebar you will see that the Police deny that they are trying to create a registration system by default. The misinterpretation of the law will not discover how many un-registered semi-autos there are out there. There will be many semi-autos that do not fall into the new Police misinterpretation of an MSSA. Eg: bog-standard mini-14. So that argument is again invalid
buy a saiga with druganov stock or an h&k sl8-4 as examples legally as a cat making this an unregistered rifle. then you can buy without any license at all a 30 shot clip yes you are breaking the law when you put the two together but that's how easy it is for the non law abiding owner to get an assault type rifle.
A drugunov stock in itself does not constitute a firearm - you would have to fit it to something. You could fit it to a mini-14 and buy a 30 round magazine. The new Police misinterpretation of an MSSA will not change that. There will still be retrofit tactical kit which will is still legal on a non-semi auto, there will still be hi-cap magazines which are still legal on non-semi-auto and there will still be semi-autos such as mini-14s that are non-mssa. Those elements will still all be able to be bought together to form an unregistered MSSA. The H&L SL-8 does not have a high capacity magazine option. So that argument is again invalid.
with the changes the police want to make it then means that they will no (sic) where these weapons are as law abiding gun owners is this really a bad thing?
Any lawful and well conceived measure to improve firearms safety and security and reduce arms related crime is a very good thing and I will be the first to campaign for that. But lawful means within the law, — as in the New Zealand law made by parliament – not the Police law made by a deliberate misinterpretation. If the Police are allowed to get away with their misinterpretation of the law this time, what comes next? Does it not bother you that you might get arrested putting out your wheelie bin on a charge of dumping rubbish in a public place?