By Lachlan Forsyth
Gun owners have won a battle with the police over attempts to further restrict the weapons they own.
A Palmerston North enthusiast took the police to court, arguing they were going beyond their brief.
Last year police attempted to further restrict modern semi-automatic rifles equipped with thumb grips, which would have meant costly extra security measures for gun owners, and limits on how and where they could use them.
But Richard Lincoln of the National Shooters Association successfully argued police were trying to change the law rather than just enforce it – something they had no power to do.
“The judge has quite rightfully said, in the decision of the High Court, that a pistol grip on a rifle is a safety feature which allows the operator of the firearm optimum control,” he says.
“The difference is whether or not Parliament in this country makes the law, or whether people can legislate outside Parliament to introduce firearms regulations that are not sanctioned,” says Mr Lincoln.
Gun dealer David Tipple says police went way beyond their brief, labelling the judgement “very sensible”.
“Brings the police right into line and makes their expanded definition of the law illegal – they should never have tried it in the first place. They were unreasonably intransigent, they simply didn’t listen,” he says.
It is always responsible gun owners who end up getting penalised, Mr Tipple says, though police say they just want to clamp down on dangerous weapons.
“That’s not a bad thing, it’s a great thing. But let’s look at where we really have a problem,” says Mr Tipple.
Police would not comment today saying they need to review the decision, consider the implications of the judgement and decide what action they may take.
3 News