ACT’s draft firearms policy for public consultation
The Arms (Prohibited Firearms, Magazines, and Parts) Amendment Act did a great disservice to the public, including 250,000 law-abiding firearm owners who were unfairly treated throughout the process.
The sweeping changes to the Arms Act 1983 were unnecessarily rushed and lawmakers did not seek any meaningful input from industry experts. The Order in Council, originally valid until 30 June 2020, provided sufficient time for public consultation, however the superseding legislation was passed under urgency.
This legislation effectively criminalised law-abiding citizens and has the potential to bring about a raft of unintended consequences.
ACT was the only party to vote against this legislation.
There are now serious risks to public safety. The number of black market firearms in New Zealand has the potential to increase exponentially.
ACT believes that the best way forward is to again amend the Arms Act 1983 in a way that promotes safety, rescinds some of the recent restrictions, and saves taxpayers potentially hundreds of millions of dollars.
ACT would:
1. Extend the amnesty period and ensure that compensation includes security, licensing costs, parts, consumables, and ammunition;
2. Reinstate the E endorsement category and expand it to include all recently-prohibited semi-automatic firearms (excluding .22 rimfire or smaller) and remove the ‘military-style’ descriptor. The vetting and security requirements would be based on the previously high standards of an E endorsement (prior to the law change), and could potentially be tightened further. The recently-created ‘exemption categories’ would be integrated into this category, including parts and magazines, and sporting/competition shooters would be allowed to apply;
3. Adjust the magazine limits to 7 for shotgun, 10 for all other centrefire, and 15 for rimfire;
4. Stop the shift towards a centralised firearms licensing regime, which reduces the local presence of Arms Officers and vetting personnel, and removes face-to-face interviews of applicants;
5. Stop the creation of a register for A category firearms;
6. Implement a law that clarifies who can and cannot own a firearm (e.g. members of violent gangs), and on what basis;
7. Hold an inquiry into whether home security requirements for A category firearms can and should be standardised;
8. Implement a law that affirms minimum sentences for criminal acts that involve firearms; and,
9. Hold an inquiry into whether the administration of the Arms Act 1983 should be shifted from the Police to an independent government agency.
A pity they will not get these to happen, i don’t disagree with any of their points. Watch the register become a nightmare, plus it will serve no real good.
10 Tell all gang members that unless they leave the gang and get a job in six months they will be used a live targets at gun clubs.
If Cindy hadn’t insisted on centralising this AND if plod hadn’t just rolled over, then none of this would have happened. Plod just didn’t do their job correctly.
You mean when Cindy removed a proven safety-check for society when she allowed gun purchasers to apply for their gun license on-line instead of being personally eye-balled by the local firearms officer?
Funny how the NZ Herald, Stuff and Newshub never managed to call Cindy on that, eh?
Yes, Lyin’ Cindy bears a direct responsibility for this mess. It is time the administration of the Arms Act was removed from the police. It is the job of the police to deal with criminals (I know they sometimes seem reluctant to actually do that) and the fact is that the vast, overwhelming majority of licenced sporting shooters are NOT criminals.
Good luck with number 8. The judiciary will have what Merkel is on if this ever happened
So many technical criminals in NZ now, will they skew the stats?
The police will record these technical criminals as a “firearms related offence” and say that the evident rapid rise in firearms crime shows the need more powers and more regulation. We’ve seen it all before.
Could say that it was a portable condiment?
And colour it, seems like a waste of vodka.
It’s all very well to list the 1 to 9 points raised by ACT but what about the effort by Labour Lite (the bullshit artist previously known as National) to protect private property and citizens rights!
Their ‘list’ of citizen-friendly policies should be numbered zero (0) since 1 to 9 are taken.
This number – zero (0) – reflects what Labour Lite Party has done here for NZ citizen rights when a foreign national came to NZ; apparently passed a police check to get a firearms licence despite visiting North Korea and a number other of unsavoury places; then set about and murdered what are mostly recent arrivals in NZ.
Largely, a foreigner killing foreigners on OUR soil.
So we suffer the fallout.
In truth Labour Lite should get a negative number, not zero, but I’m too lazy to investigate their efforts – just like they were too lazy to protect our rights.
This disdain extends to former Police Minister, Judith Collins, and also Paula Benefit.
Socialist, diversity loving, tattoo friendly, globby warming drip, Cindy Friendly, Chris Luxon is probably a good fit for Labour Lite.
I have probably majority voted Labour Lite in the past but it was always a vote against ‘the other mob’ rather than any enthusiasm for the Lite mob.
LL were a very poor financial manager in the 1990 to 1999 Govt and in the 1975 to 1984 Labour Lite Govt they were more socialist and interventionist that the 1984-87 Labour Govt.
This week I made my first ever political donation..to ACT.
Given their stance on a number of key issues it is most likely won’t be the last.
Why am I not surprised that Police knowledge of the law re crossbows is less than Fire Arms after the Ashburton Gun Dealer debacle, asking for a friend of course.