 |
This article's lead section may be too long. Please read the length guidelines and help move details into the article's body. (January 2019)
|
 |
This section appears to be slanted towards recent events. Please try to keep recent events in historical perspective and add more content related to non-recent events. (January 2019)
|
Nearly 250,000 [1] licensed firearms owners own and use New Zealand's estimated 1.5 million [1] firearms.[2] As in Australia, but unlike the US and Canada, gun laws usually gain the support of both major parties before they are passed. Guns are not currently a major political issue, but have been immediately after the Aramoana massacre in 1990, and the Scottish Dunblane and Australian Port Arthur massacres in 1996.
Gun licenses are issued at the discretion of the police in New Zealand provided the police consider the person to be of good standing[citation needed] and without criminal, psychiatric or drug issues as well as meeting other conditions such as having suitable storage facilities. To be issued, they must be issued for a valid reason[citation needed], which may not include self defense[citation needed], although the law does not support this restriction for ownership for self defense[citation needed]. Several different categories of licenses are permitted, with the lowest one permitting access to restricted semi-automatic rifles and shotguns, with limited capacity, while the higher levels which permit fully automatic weaponry and pistols are rarely issued to civilians.
Various governments[vague], groups[vague] behind the Thorp reports[citation needed], and the New Zealand Police[3] have pushed for various forms of universal firearm registration. This has currently not succeeded but current maneuverings[needs update] by the New Zealand Police are attempting to reclassify large numbers of 'A' category firearms as 'E' category (military-style semi-automatics), which requires them to be registered[speculation?]. This has been done though even by their own admission[4] the New Zealand Police cannot reliably register the current military-style semi-automatic (MSSA) firearms.
In March 2009 the New Zealand police bid to reclassify certain types of civilian semi-automatic firearms was overturned by the New Zealand High Court as a result of a legal challenge mounted by the New Zealand National Shooters Association (NSA) president Richard Lincoln.[citation needed]
Gun laws in New Zealand are notably more liberal than other countries in the Pacific[dubious – discuss] and focus mainly on vetting firearm owners, rather than registering firearms or banning certain types of firearms.[5] Firearms legislation is provided for in the Arms Act and its associated regulations, though stricter unofficial police and government policies also apply.[citation needed].
Under New Zealand law, some lawful, proper, and sufficient purpose is needed to use, discharge or carry any firearm, airgun, or similar weapon anywhere. The person carrying, using, or discharging the weapon is obliged to prove the purpose was lawful, proper, and sufficient. This requirement applies even if the person can legally possess the weapon. Exactly what constitutes a lawful, proper, and sufficient purpose is not defined in legislation and needs to be proven on a case by case basis.
It is established law and public policy that allowing privately owned guns to be carried by people who provide personal protection to VIPs, whether foreign or domestic, is not appropriate. Armed protection, if necessary, should be provided by the New Zealand Police or the New Zealand Armed Forces.[6] In the case of the APEC Summit that New Zealand hosted in September 1999 the Arms Act had to be specifically amended to allow foreign dignitaries to be protected by their own personal protection officers, who were carrying their own firearms. The legislated regime required the New Zealand Police to work closely with the foreign dignitaries and their personal protection officers for the duration of the Summit and automatically expired at the end of the month.
The New Zealand Police has a Diplomatic Protection Service(DPS) that trains and provides protection officers to protect VIPs. DPS protection officers, unlike most New Zealand Police officers, are routinely armed while on duty.
In the Arms Code, Police advise that self-defence is not a valid reason to possess a firearm. Because firearms are lethal weapons, a person needs to have a honest belief that they or someone else is at imminent threat of death or grievous bodily harm at the time they discharge the firearm. While the Crimes Act allows a person to use reasonable force to defend oneself or another person against assault or entry into a dwelling house, that force needs to be proportionate to any force being used to effect the assault or entry and not excessive. Preemptive action in anticipation of a threat or retribution after the threat has passed are both considered excessive force by the Courts. Even Police actions when confronting armed offenders that results in death or injury of anyone are thoroughly investigated by the Police, the Independent Police Conduct Authority and, in cases of death, the Coroner.
New Zealand cases where an ordinary person has been justified in discharging a firearm that injured or killed an assailant are rare. In April 2009 a Chinese Restaurant and Takeaways shop owner shot a masked armed robber with the robber's own gun after wresting it off him. Police decided against laying charges. In 2006 a gunshop employee shot a machete-wielding armed robber with a handgun that was hidden under the counter. The court dismissed the charges that Police laid.[7]
Firearms in New Zealand fall into one of four categories:
Registration is not required under the law but the police carry out a regime similar to registration for all but "A Category" firearms. Firearms in any other category require a "permit to procure" before they are transferred.
Except under supervision of a licence holder, owning or using firearms requires a firearms licence from the police. The licence is normally issued under the conditions that the applicant has secure storage for firearms, attends a safety program administered by the Mountain Safety Council and passes a written safety test. The police will also interview the applicant and two referees (one must be a close relative and the other not related) to determine whether the applicant is "fit and proper" to have a firearm. The applicant's residence is also visited to check that they have appropriate storage for firearms and ammunition. Having criminal associations or a history of domestic violence almost always leads to a licence being declined.
|
This section may contain an excessive amount of intricate detail that may interest only a particular audience. Please help by spinning offorrelocating any relevant information, and removing excessive detail that may be against Wikipedia's inclusion policy. (January 2019) (Learn how and when to remove this message)
|
A standard firearms licence allows the use of "A Category" firearms. To possess firearms of another category a person is required to get an endorsement to their licence. There are different endorsements for different classes of firearm but they all require a higher level of storage security, stricter vetting requirements and the applicant must have an end use for wanting the endorsement. Be it pest control for E cat, cowboy shooting and 3-gun for B cat, or just wanting to collect (provided one has adequate storage security) for C cat.
Each endorsement type has additional requirements
B Endorsement – Target (competition) pistols
C Endorsement – Restricted weapons
Pistols can also be held on the C endorsement instead of the B. Common special reasons include:
D Licence – Dealers licence
For those that make an income from firearms. To sell restricted weapons the dealer also needs to have the appropriate endorsements.
E Endorsement – Military-style semi-automatics
New class of restricted weapon that was created after the Aramoana shooting spree. At the time anyone with an MSSA that wanted to keep it in that configuration was given a E endorsement (after going through the vetting and extra security requirements). But presently few are issued. Common reasons for wanting an E endorsement are professional pest destruction, collecting, 3-gun and service rifle shooting. Those people that did not want the extra hassle and expense of the endorsement converted their rifles into 'A' configuration by removing the components that made it an 'E'.
F Endorsement – Dealers staff licence
This class allows a person working for a dealer to demonstrate a pistol, military-style semi-automatic or a collectable weapon without having to have that class of licence. They can demonstrate one but not possess one for personal use. This is not a well known endorsement
Anyone buying firearms or ammunition, whether privately or from a dealer, needs to show their firearms licence. In addition, a permit to procure must be obtained prior to the transfer of pistols, military-style semi-automatics and restricted weapons. Sales can be made by mail-order, but a police officer must sign the order form to verify that the purchaser has a firearms licence.
Firearms first arrived in New Zealand with European traders and were traded in large numbers to the native Māori. This lead partly to the Musket Wars of the early 19th century. The first gun control laws were enacted in 1845, but early regulations were ineffective until the passage of the Arms Act in 1860, which required licences and registration of firearms and firearm dealers. Early laws were mainly targeted at Māori during the land wars in the Waikato and Taranaki, and were largely suspended at the end of the 1880s. By about 1910 the laws were ignored and unenforced, as crime and the threat of political unrest were minimal.
Strikes in 1912 and 1913, a Communist revolution in Russia, and large numbers of ex-military guns coming into the country after World War I were used as justification for a new law in 1920. The new law required the registration of all firearms and issuance of a "permit to procure" before a firearm was transferred. Semi-automatic pistols were banned and a special permit was needed for other pistols (e.g. revolvers), with the intent of discouraging the carrying of concealed weapons. Few changes were seen for the next forty years as crime remained low and the country avoided political violence.
Increasing gun crime in the 1960s led to greater police use of registration records, which were generally inaccurate or out-of-date. A project to check the register began in 1967, and found that 66 percent of entries were inaccurate in some way, with many guns not to be found at all. Police thought that the register was largely useless, and that substantial resources would be needed to keep it up-to-date. It was believed that the government would be unlikely to provide the resources required to update the register and that it would be politically difficult to demand registration information from firearm owners. Various new laws were introduced in the 1970s and 80s, proposing more government checks, registration of shotguns (which had been abandoned) and individual licensing.
An internal police report in 1982 criticised the proposals, saying there was no evidence that registration of guns helped to solve crimes, and that registration would use time and money better spent on other police work. This policy was adopted by the government in the 1983 Act.[8]
The 1983 Arms Act abandoned registration for most long guns, as Parliament felt it was prohibitively expensive and not particularly useful. The philosophy of the new system was to control users, rather than firearms. Police were required to conduct a background check before a licence would be issued (though existing owners would be issued a licence automatically), but once a person had a licence there was no requirement to register long guns or obtain a permit-to-procure when they were sold or lent.
Special restrictions applied to restricted weapons and pistols, which needed to be registered. Self-defence was no longer a valid reason to have a pistol[dubious – discuss] (although the Crimes Act 1961 states a person can use "reasonable force" to defend oneself and/or one's property, and nowhere in this[ambiguous] act states a person cannot use a firearm for such purposes, while the arms act does not mention "directly in words" one cannot use a firearm for self-defence)[unbalanced opinion?][relevant?], but the new sport of target pistol shooting has become more popular, and pistol club shooters can own pistols with a special "B" endorsement.
After the Aramoana massacre in November 1990, John Banks, the Minister for Police, announced that the government would ban what he and others described as "Rambo-style" weapons and substantially tighten gun laws generally. The law was eventually passed in 1992 and required written permits to order guns or ammunition by mail order, restricted ammunition sales to firearms licence holders, added photographs to firearms licences, required licence holders to have secure storage for firearms at their homes (which would be inspected before a licence was issued), and, controversially, required all licence holders to be re-vetted for new licences, which would be valid for only 10 years.
The law also created the new category of "military-style semi-automatic", which like the Federal Assault Weapons Ban two years later in the United States, mainly covered the appearance rather than the functionality of the guns. These required a special endorsement, security and registration in the same manner as pistols, but could be used wherever A-category guns could.
After two shootings by police in 1995, the government ordered an inquiry into police procedures for storing and using firearms. Before the review started, massacres overseas at Dunblane and Port Arthur led the government to expand the scope to gun control generally. The police reported that the system was sound and that no major changes were needed.
The government decided to order another report, this time led by former judge Thomas Thorp. The report was released in 1997 and called for many new restrictions on legal gun ownership, including banning various features, and that all guns be registered (the last particularly unpopular with firearm owners).
 |
This article needs to be updated. The reason given is: Arms Amendment (No. 3) Bill had second reading in 2012 but not passed into law. Please help update this article to reflect recent events or newly available information. (January 2019)
|
The National government in 1999, its last year in office, introduced an Arms Amendment (No. 2) Bill to implement the recommendations, and the bill was supported by the new Labour government. After the strong weight of submissions made against the bill when it was in select committee, the government was persuaded that the changes were unneeded and would be difficult to implement. Due to the opposition, the bill was withdrawn. The government then introduced a much reduced Arms Amendment (No. 3) Bill, which increased penalties for distribution, manufacture and use of illegal weapons. It has been in select committee since 2005, and the government has not shown any sign of proceeding with it.
|
This section appears to be slanted towards recent events. Please try to keep recent events in historical perspective and add more content related to non-recent events. (January 2019)
|
In August 2009, the Police decided that any firearm, including single shot bolt action rifles, with a free-standing pistol grip that could allow the firearm to be shot inaccurately from the hip would be defined as an MSSA.[9] However, the High Court rejected this attempt in Lincoln v Police [2010] BCL 194; 33 TCL 11/2. Parliament subsequently amended the Arms Act as a result of the court decision.[10]
In 2015, a TV reporter demonstrated how to subvert processes to purchase a gun by mail-order.[11] Police promptly changed their mail-order processes and commenced a criminal investigation.
In March 2016, after Police seized 14 illegally owned MSSA weapons in a raid in south Auckland and 4 officers were shot during an armed siege in Kawerau,[12] Parliament's Law and Order Select Committee announced an Inquiry into issues relating to the illegal possession of firearms in New Zealand.[13] In their final report the committee made 20 recommendations, of which the National government accepted 7 and modified another.[14] The government introduced the Arms (Firearm Prohibition Orders and Firearms Licences) Amendment Bill to implement several of the recommendations shortly before the 2017 election but it lapsed with the change of government. It was subsequently drawn as a private member's bill but it failed to pass at the first reading.[15] The Minister also directed Police to improve their administrative processes and consultation with the firearms community.
Amendments to the Arms Regulations 2002, to allow Police to accept and process various applications concerning firearms licences and weapons transactions electronically were included in the Arms (Electronic Transactions) Amendment Regulations 2018[16] that were published in the Gazette on 20 December 2018, commence 28 days afterwards.
The New Zealand Police administer and enforce the Arms Act 1983.[17] They are issued Bushmaster XM-15 semi-automatic rifles, Glock 17 gen 4 pistols, and Tasers, which are normally carried in patrol cars and not on the officers.[relevant?][18]
The New Zealand Police Association, the police union / service association, has repeatedly lobbied for greater access to firearms for police officers.[19][20][21] As well as stricter regulations on licensed firearm owners.[22][23][24]
The Council of Licensed Firearms Owners (COLFO) was set up in 1996.
The Sporting Shooters Association of New Zealand is a part-time lobby group that is usually only active at elections and when there are government calls for gun control laws. It is smaller than COLFO.
The National Shooters Association is a nationwide civilian gun owners association that took the forefront in a 2009 legal challenge against unauthorised police interference with gun regulations. Its executive is largely made up of former members of the Practical Shooting Institute, a predecessor group which had similar success bringing court action against Police interference in 1990.
The two major anti-gun groups in recent years have been the Coalition for Gun Control, and Gunsafe NZ. Neither is still active, but were led by activist Philip Alpers and Mike Meyrick, a former police officer and lawyer.[25]
The main parties, Labour and National, generally treat gun control as a bi-partisan issue. Both support the passage of the Arms Amendment (No. 3) Bill[citation needed].
The Outdoor Recreation party was formed in 2001 to support hunting and sport fishing. It failed to gain any seats in 2002, and again in 2005, when, with the United Future party, it contested the election.[citation needed]
The Green Party supports an increase in legislative restrictions on public access to firearms.[26] The Greens policies include the full ban of private ownership of all semi automatic firearms and the reintroduction of a national firearms registry.[27]
The New Zealand First party supports the right of New Zealanders to own and use firearms safely and responsibly for hunting, sport, pest control, target shooting, and Home Defence (Castle Doctrine). The Party does not support calls for universal gun registration, preferring the licensing of individual users. New Zealand First believes restrictions on firearms ownership by type should be dictated by functionality rather than appearance.[citation needed]
The Thorp inquiry found reliable information was not available to answer basic questions about the number and types of firearms owned, used, traded, sold by the army, lost, stolen, or destroyed; people owning and using firearms legally or illegally; surrendered, revoked or refused firearms licences; relicencing compliance; crime committed with firearms and even the cost of administering licencing and enforcement.[28]
Apart from the Thorp report[28] itself, most statistical information about firearms numbers, licencing and trading is only available from the New Zealand Police. Although Police publish some information in its annual reports or when reporting to Select Committees, most information is only made available as a result of requests for Official Information. In June 2018, Police announced that they would proactively publish responses to Official Information Act requests that contained data or information about firearms that might be of wide public interest.[29]
{{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |dead-url= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
