I am getting political tomorrow.

BTMO

Overlord of the Underthings
BTMO
Joined
May 1, 2009
Messages
2,521
I am getting political tomorrow.

New Zealand gun laws are some of the best (relative to the others that I have experience with) that I have come across, but on of the issues I have with them is that the police decide how they are interpreted.

This means that if they change their minds about how the laws are interpreted, they are the only authority. This does not sit well with me.

I discovered today that the police decided to change the way they have interpreted a specific aspect of the law - that has been working without problems for the last 25 years. But first some background.

In NZ, we have a basic firearms licence ("A" Category) that allows a licence holder to purchase as many "A" firearms as they like.

This includes single shot, bolt action, pump action, level action and (some) semi automatic long arms, without restriction. There are specific requirements for storage, and licences are re-issued every ten years.

Pistols ("B" category) and Military Style Semi Automatics or MSSAs ("E" category) firearms are managed quite differently, they need to be registered, have much more stringent storage requirements and can only be used under the terms of the registration / procurement permit issued by the police.

The change that has been made is that a number of "A" category firearms were re-categorised as "E" category firearms earlier in the month... but no one was consulted, and pretty much no one knew about it. The police just decided they'd overturn 25 years of system that worked for... cosmetic reasons.

I am still trying to find out what the new rules are, but I am seriously ticked off about this.

In NZ, the police are *meant* to work with shooter groups to create law that works. They haven't done this.

By making this change, several thousand NZ shooters are (potentially) criminals today - because they have firearms outside of the terms of their licence, they don't have appropriate storage, they don't have a reason to own the firearms that they have legally owned for the last quarter century and to make them legal, they have to buy new safes, upgrade their home security, pay a fee for the "E" category endorsement, and demonstrate need for each and every firearm that has been re-classified. This could potentially cost them thousands.

So I am getting political. I am writing letters to the relevant government and opposition MPs, the police and the local papers.

I am not a happy camper right now...

For the record, I don't actually own any of the firearms affected, but I am a strong believer in supporting all members of the shooting sports.

And hey - I *have* owned guns that would have fallen foul of this law in the past.
 
BTMO said:
In NZ, the police are *meant* to work with shooter groups to create law that works.
Click to expand...

The police create law? Not the relevant legislative body?

I would have thought that which firearms were classified in which category would have been explicitly spelled out in the original law. Or did that law have a clause that read something like "Categorization of firearms to be determined by law enforcement"?
 
We have something like that here.

While the BATF cannot pass laws, it can ban certain guns by restricting importation or by placing them into NFA categories.

For example, during the height of Federal gun control in the US, a few of the guns that had created the Assault Weapons Ban furor ended up making through the bill unscathed. One example of these was the Stiker-12, sometimes called a "Streetsweeper" (or Jail Breaker, if you play Resident Evil 5). It wasn't part of the ban because it wasn't a semi-automatic at all, but essentially an oversized revolver shotgun.

The BATF responded to this by first blocking the importation of the gun (which was originally made in South Africa) and then declaring it a Destructive Device subject to NFA rules (along with a number of other shotguns). This effectively banned the gun, as the Destructive Device catagory is usually meant for bazookas and cannons and as such is very heavily regulated.

I wish you luck. I've found that once these things get done, they are very hard to get undone, though. My above example was put into effect over a decade ago, and despite the fact that it doesn't really make much sense, and we've had a pro-gun administration since then, it is still in effect. There just isn't much sympathy in unregulating guns, it seems.
 
Vorticity said:
The police create law? Not the relevant legislative body?

I would have thought that which firearms were classified in which category would have been explicitly spelled out in the original law. Or did that law have a clause that read something like "Categorization of firearms to be determined by law enforcement"?
Click to expand...

Yeah - the way the law is written here, the police decide which firearms belong in which class.

There are some types of guns that are explicitly in one group or another - pistols and firearms less than 746mm over all length are easy ones, as are military style semiautomatics (MSSA) with magazine capacities of greater than 7 rounds for centrefires, and greater than 15 rounds for rimfires, but there was a decision made about 18 years ago that if you had rifle that had a magazine capacity below these limits, and didn't have MSSA features - from our Arms Act:

An MSSA is a self-loading rifle or shotgun with one or more
of the following features:
• Folding or telescopic butt
• Magazine that holds, or has appearance of holding, more
than 15 cartridges for .22 rimfire
• Magazine that holds, or has appearance of holding, more
than 7 cartridges for others
• Bayonet lug
• Free standing military style pistol grip
• Flash suppresser(flash hider, free standing pistol grip, bayonet lug
Click to expand...

- was not an MSSA. The police allowed modifications to be performed to remove these features, and have the rifles in question classified as Cat A.

This (kind of) made sense, as a sporting style semi automatic rifle, such as a Browning BAR, has never been on the radar as an MSSA.

I say "kind of" - because I am stuffed if I can figure out how a flash hider or a bayonet lug makes a rifle more dangerous, and if so, why these features aren't restricted on (say) a bolt action rifle.

Anyway, the current furore is over the fact that a very large number of rifles that were previously modified, or *manufactured* to comply with the cat A requirements have now (apparently - I am still waiting to see what the police actually have to say about it, and the information available is sketchy at best) been reclassified as cat E.

So to answer your question, yes - the police can make this determination (I think - I have just been reading the legislation - it may take an act by the governor general - but I may be blurring the line between a "restricted" firearm and one that you merely need an endorsement to own...)
 
Ok.. so this is what I have decided to send to the appropriate MPs...

--------------

Reclassification of some firearms from Category A to Category E

I learned yesterday that the NZ Police has decided to reclassify a number of firearms from Category A (i.e., commonly available sporting firearms) to Category E (i.e., Military Style Semi Automatics, or MSSAs).

This change is not based on function of the firearms involved; it is not based on the safety or use of the firearms involved, it is not based on the magazine capacity, accuracy, muzzle energy or range of the firearms involved.

It is based solely on the cosmetic appearance of the firearms involved. And the change in classification does not even comply with the current Arms Act, Arms Amendment Act or Arms Code, which state:

An MSSA is a self-loading rifle or shotgun with one or more of the following features:
- Folding or telescopic butt.
- Magazine that holds, or has appearance of holding, more than 15 cartridges for .22 rimfire
- Magazine that holds, or has appearance of holding, more than 7 cartridges for others
- Bayonet lug
- Free standing military style pistol grip
- Flash suppresser

(From section 2, Arms Amendment Act 1992 and Arms Act 1983; Arms Code, page 34)

All of the information I have seen to date indicates that none of the firearms that are being reclassified have any of these features.

Instead, the police are redefining what the term “Free standing military style pistol grip” means. Evidently, this term now means whatever the police say it means.

I have a number of issues with this reclassification, and would like to protest this change, and hear what actions you will be taking in response to these changes.

My issues with these changes are threefold.

Firstly, there doesn’t appear to be any valid reason for the change. Firearms that are being reclassified are, as near as I can tell (the information available from the police is shockingly sparse), firearms that have met, and continue to meet, all requirements for categorisation as Category A firearms, and have done so for approximately 18 years. The cynic in me feels that the changes are in response to the actions of Jan Molenaar in Napier – that the police feel that they must be “seen to be doing something” – in other words, the changes are little more than political point scoring.

Secondly, the changes have the effect of retrospectively criminalising a large number of New Zealanders – who are the only body of sportsmen in this country who must apply for police permission to simply engage in their chosen sport. Even those who wish to comply with the changes are unable to do so at this time, because the police don’t even know how the changes will actually be made, or enforced, or how applications for E category endorsements will be managed (as reported on National Radio earlier this week).

Additionally, licensed shooters who are affected, and this is potentially tens of thousands of New Zealanders, will be considerably out of pocket after these changes are enforced, as they will have to either

- Apply for an E category endorsement for the firearms that are affected ($200), purchase a new, E category compliant safe (up to $1,000), potentially increase the security of their homes (dead bolts, alarm systems, etc) and then register these firearms or,
- Sell the affected firearms at prevailing market rates, and selling into a glut means that it is likely that these firearms will sell for very much less than they were purchased for, or what they are truly worth.

And assuming that the affected shooters do decide to pursue a Category E endorsement, this will increase the workload on Police Firearms Officers, as additional vetting, inspection and registration activities will need to be undertaken. I suspect the police are not manned or funded for a change of this nature.

Finally, the manner of the change is completely counter to the consultative process that has built up over the last 25 years of firearms management in this country. The police made the change without any consultation at all with the shooting community, no notification to the shooting community until a poorly worded and not very informative press release was issued (after the change was made), and the change was made for reasons that simply haven’t been communicated with the shooting community.

Also, at time of writing, the police website still has no indication that the rules have changed in regard to these firearms!

All of this means that potentially tens of thousands of law abiding shooters in this country are today in breach of the conditions of their firearms licences, through no fault, action or inaction of their own, but by reason of a fait accompli action of the police, that wasn’t even communicated to the affected shooters when it occurred!

Indeed, Superintendent Tony McLeod apparently stated, when interviewed, that he did not know how many owners or firearms were affected!

I look forward to your response.
 
We had this debate in Australia years ago in the aftermath of Port Arthur. For the life I can't see why sporting shooters need semi-automatic anything.
 
lionking said:
We had this debate in Australia years ago in the aftermath of Port Arthur. For the life I can't see why sporting shooters need semi-automatic anything.
Click to expand...

Because the way a firearm cycles its action has nothing to do with how the firearm will be used.

Just because *you* can't see the need for one, don't assume no one else has a valid reason to own one. I can think of three, without trying. All are valid sporting uses.

I get quite annoyed with the "it doesn't affect me personally, therefore I won't do anything to support other shooters" attitude.

Oh, and how easy is it to get *any* firearm in Australia today? And who paid for the "buyback"?

Would you like to hear the story of my friend in South Australia whose aged father lived in his house, and the dad had an antique single shot .410 in the house?

Well, the son had a number of legally owned and registered firearms and was responsible for all of them. When his dad went to hospital with a massive stroke, the son was solely responsible for them.

Shortly after the dad died, the police showed up and demanded... the antique.

The son had a number of pistols, incidentally. Still does. He has his dad's .410 too. It only took him six months of legal wrangling...
 
Well civilised society has hardly collapsed with the ban on semi-automatics. Sporting shooters still enjoy their sport. Oh, and we have not had the massacres we had when semi-automatics were prevalent. And I'm not just talking about Port Arthur.

Good luck with your protest. But I am firm in my belief that Australia is a safer place with the ban.
 
lionking said:
Well civilised society has hardly collapsed with the ban on semi-automatics. Sporting shooters still enjoy their sport. Oh, and we have not had the massacres we had when semi-automatics were prevalent. And I'm not just talking about Port Arthur.

Good luck with your protest. But I am firm in my belief that Australia is a safer place with the ban.
Click to expand...

I appreciate what you are saying, but Australia has had a number of mass-killings since Port Arthur. None with semi-automatic firearms (yet), but I suspect that is simply a matter of time.

It has also had a number of other murders that have involved semi automatic firearms, and pistols, and all sorts of other things.

Focussing on a tool doesn't solve the problem - it just convinces the great unwashed that "something is being done".

A lot of research is starting to suggest now that focus on firearm actions (and guns in general) has no impact whatsoever on murder or suicide rates.

Also, I should point out that the issue I outlined above isn't about banning semiautos per se - it is about reclassifying a relatively small number of rifles (perhaps 50,000) from one class of firearm to another. It is an administrative change that will "only" cost those people impacted between $1,000 and $2,000 - after complying with the law for the last 20 years.

My major objection to the change is that it appears to be illegal - the police have made a determination that is against the letter (and intent, I believe) of the Arms Act, the Arms Amendment Act and the Arms code.
 
BTMO said:
I appreciate what you are saying, but Australia has had a number of mass-killings since Port Arthur. None with semi-automatic firearms (yet), but I suspect that is simply a matter of time.

It has also had a number of other murders that have involved semi automatic firearms, and pistols, and all sorts of other things.

Focussing on a tool doesn't solve the problem - it just convinces the great unwashed that "something is being done".

A lot of research is starting to suggest now that focus on firearm actions (and guns in general) has no impact whatsoever on murder or suicide rates.

Also, I should point out that the issue I outlined above isn't about banning semiautos per se - it is about reclassifying a relatively small number of rifles (perhaps 50,000) from one class of firearm to another. It is an administrative change that will "only" cost those people impacted between $1,000 and $2,000 - after complying with the law for the last 20 years.

My major objection to the change is that it appears to be illegal - the police have made a determination that is against the letter (and intent, I believe) of the Arms Act, the Arms Amendment Act and the Arms code.
Click to expand...
Fair enough, but I think we have different definitions of "mass-killings". There have been no repeats of Hoddle Street, Queen Street or Port Arthur. Never mind.

I agree that this should not just be a police determination, but should be properly legislated.
 
lionking said:
Fair enough, but I think we have different definitions of "mass-killings". There have been no repeats of Hoddle Street, Queen Street or Port Arthur. Never mind.

I agree that this should not just be a police determination, but should be properly legislated.
Click to expand...


I was primarily thinking of Childers in Queensland. 15 people were killed when some sicko barricaded the doors, then set fire to a backpackers lodge. A number of others were hurt.
 
BTMO said:
I was primarily thinking of Childers in Queensland. 15 people were killed when some sicko barricaded the doors, then set fire to a backpackers lodge. A number of others were hurt.
Click to expand...

Okay. Nothing to do with firearms though.
 
It occured to me, while clearing out old threads, that I never posted a follow up to this.

A lot of NZ shooters wrote to the media, parliament and the police about this, and the response from all of them was (in essence) - "We support the police".

So a shooter took the police to court. The judge agreed with the opinion of the shooting fraternity. The way NZ law is written, the police were acting outside of their authority and were basically creating new law.

The whole fiasco cost the taxpayer a sack of money - because the local police thought they were above the law.

It all went quietly away.
 
It likely predates the split into US and Non-US politics and got filtered into the wrong one.
 
That makes sense. I didn't notice the split, because I rarely delve into political discussions on here (unless they are gun related)
 
PhantomWolf said:
It likely predates the split into US and Non-US politics and got filtered into the wrong one.
Click to expand...

Actually, there was no filtering, AFAIK. My understanding is that the split was done thusly:
- The old Politics forum was renamed "USA Politics" (or, the day it was implemented which was April 1 "USAin Politics"
- A new forum was created called "Non US & General Politics" (or, "Third World Politics" on the day of the split).

Of course, maybe there was a filtering and they figured that since this was a pro-gun thread it had to be a US issue, since we know every other country in the world hates guns.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom