headspace wrote:Could you march in the Gay Mardi Gras with that pink thing?
Jack V wrote:headspace wrote:Could you march in the Gay Mardi Gras with that pink thing?
Only if you had a handbag and shoes to match mate
headspace wrote:Could you march in the Gay Mardi Gras with that pink thing?
grizzly wrote:This law where you can't have anything that looks like a military frirearm is insulting to anyone with intelligence.
You would think that the law makers and leaders of any country should be the most level headed, clear minded, educated and informed people of their land. To review existing laws to try and prevent a percieved risk in the future is fair enough but to then ban a firearm based solely on it's appearance is the most uneducated, uninformed and absent minded decision I have ever seen in firearm laws.
Baldrick314 wrote:
It's absurd to us because we understand firearms. I'm sure when the laws were being drafted they were trying to make it so in the event of a robbery you wouldn't have someone waving around what looks like an AR in the faces of people who only know that profile from movies and would assume it's a machine gun. Not that rate of fire would really come into it in that situation but if I tell myself they had their hearts in the right place I might retain a little faith in our legal system.
grizzly wrote:......and of course anyone that is willing to rob a bank has complete disregard for the law anyway so are unlikely to follow firearms laws when robbing said bank. If they want to reduce the rate of fire (which is understandable), pass laws on the action not the appearance.
grizzly wrote:This law where you can't have anything that looks like a military frirearm is insulting to anyone with intelligence.
Baronvonrort wrote:I think of it more like modern and old fashioned instead of military appearance.
sally-bee wrote:I agree it's very stupid to judge on appearance and not how it fires.
nords wrote:I wonder if you draw a picture of a switch and write 'safe' and 'semi' in red on the side of your rifle is that counts as military so you can't have it
Point223 wrote:I'm referring to NSW law I don't know about other states.
Seconds wrote:Baronvonrort wrote:I think of it more like modern and old fashioned instead of military appearance.
You like to... Not the Gov though
You may recall the Steve Lee video where he talks about the M14 being banned 6 months ago or whenever it was.
It's cat D but he had the license, it was the 'old fashioned' timber one, not a modern tactical version.
Still gone
agentzero wrote:Point223 wrote:Say a 7600 .308 Remington modified to look like an AR-15. Is that legal?
This is the problem with the 'military appearance' legisation, it's very unclear.
There are no set features, colours, dimensions, accessories etc. which are specifically listed as having a 'military appearance'.
It's just what they decide they should ban.
In WA at the moment guys are losing their Colt 2012's because they're the wrong looking rifle, even though they've been legal up to this point. Someone has just decided to take offence to them now.
Pennsylvania Yank wrote:At least that is what my common sense and experience tells me]
Pennsylvania Yank wrote:With all due respect to your country, can anyone explain how your court system works? I suspect such a vague law in the US would likely be challenged by gun rights groups and struck down by our courts. The law as written either bans bolt action rifles, or certain features and accessories, or it doesn't. If you have a law enforcement entity that can ban a Colt 2012 because of a gray area in the law, then the law should not stand judicial scrutiny or else the courts should demand that your legislature fix the language. At least that is what my common sense and experience tells me.
Pennsylvania Yank wrote:With all due respect to your country, can anyone explain how your court system works? I suspect such a vague law in the US would likely be challenged by gun rights groups and struck down by our courts. The law as written either bans bolt action rifles, or certain features and accessories, or it doesn't. If you have a law enforcement entity that can ban a Colt 2012 because of a gray area in the law, then the law should not stand judicial scrutiny or else the courts should demand that your legislature fix the language. At least that is what my common sense and experience tells me.
Pennsylvania Yank wrote:With all due respect to your country, can anyone explain how your court system works? I suspect such a vague law in the US would likely be challenged by gun rights groups and struck down by our courts. The law as written either bans bolt action rifles, or certain features and accessories, or it doesn't. If you have a law enforcement entity that can ban a Colt 2012 because of a gray area in the law, then the law should not stand judicial scrutiny or else the courts should demand that your legislature fix the language. At least that is what my common sense and experience tells me.
Point223 wrote:I've said it before.. the Fishers Shooters Party should create a fuss with at least a million of us going downtown for a protest. They will hear you then.
ex_reven wrote:We need to take a leaf out of the greens book on some of their campaign methods.