The Government has announced New Zealand’s gun laws will be changed so military style semi-automatics (MSSA) and assault rifles are banned.
Parts used to convert guns into MSSAs will also be banned, along with high-capacity magazines.
“All semi-automatic weapons used during the terrorist attack on Friday 15 March will be banned,” Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern said.
Amendments to the Arms Act are expected to be passed by April 11.
An amnesty will be put in place for weapons to be handed to Police, and a buyback scheme developed.
The scheme is expected to cost $100 million to $200 million. Ardern said it was yet to be decided where this funding would come from.
The National Party supports the changes.
"National will work constructively with the Government to ensure we get this right," Leader Simon Bridges said.
Ardern explained: “When Australia undertook similar reforms, their approach was to allow for exemptions for farmers upon application, including for pest control and animal welfare.
“We have taken similar action to identify the weapons legitimately required in those areas, and preclude them.”
The ban won’t include semi-automatic .22 calibre rimfire firearms (commonly used for duck hunting) with magazines that hold no more than 10 rounds, and semi-automatic and pump action shotguns with non-detachable tubular magazines that hold no more than five rounds.
Police Minister Stuart Nash said the amended law would include exemptions for Police and the Defence Force and legitimate business use, like professional pest control.
Issues around access for mainstream international sporting competitions are also being worked through.
“I strongly believe that the vast majority of legitimate gun owners in New Zealand will understand that these moves are in the national interest, and will take these changes in their stride,” Ardern said.
Interim measures
The Government has taken action to prevent people stockpiling guns in the weeks leading up to the law changes taking effect.
The Governor-General has signed an Order in Council that reclassifies the weapons to be banned, meaning owners will need to apply to Police to get an “E endorsement” on their licences.
As at 3pm Thursday, the following two groups of guns will fall under the MSSA definition:
- Semi-automatic firearms capable of being used with a detachable magazine that hold more than five cartridges
- Semi-automatic shotguns capable of being used with a detachable magazine that hold more than five cartridges
Ardern indicated firearm owners wouldn’t have much luck getting the E endorsement before the amended law kicked in, so suggested they handed their weapons to Police to hold until details of a buyback are announced.
“The actions announced today are the first step of the Government’s response,” Ardern said.
“We will continue to develop stronger and more effective licensing rules, storage requirements and penalties for not complying with gun regulations."
The creation of a register will also be considered.
“It is the Government’s intention that these amendments will go through the full legislative process,” Ardern said.
Federated Farmers supportive
Federated Farmers admits the announcement won't be popular among some of its members, but its elected representatives and staff believe "this is the only practicable solution".
“Our message to our members is to remember that at least this way, responsible gun owners are going to be recognised for being law-abiding, safety conscious and skilled,” Federated Farmers rural security spokesperson Miles Anderson said.
"We’re pleased farmers are still going to have access to sporting semiautomatic rimfire rifles, such as the .22 long rifle, and sporting semiautomatic shotguns with limited magazine capacity.
"These are needed for control of small, mobile pest species often found in groups (rabbits, possums, Canada geese) where quick follow-up shots are important for efficient, fast and humane destruction of these pests.
"Federated Farmers considers there is a very limited need for centrefire semiautomatic firearms with large capacity magazines for professional pest management, but this access should be controlled by the kind of police checks, registration of individual firearms and the increased security requirements that currently apply to E category licences.
"The surrender or destruction of firearms that don’t meet the new controls will be disappointing to many farmers, and others.
"But a clampdown is the responsible path to take to try to ensure we’re never witness to this kind of tragedy on our shores again."
Questions and answers
I have an A-Category firearms licence and now own MSSAs. What should I do?
It would normally be an offence for an A-Category licence holder to possess an MSSA, punishable by up to three years in prison or a $4000 fine. However a transitional period gives time for people to comply with the law, if they take certain steps. The transitional period will be confirmed next month. Firearms owners who unlawfully possess an MSSA now have three options:
- Voluntarily surrender the firearm to Police for safe disposal.
- Complete an online form on the Police website to arrange for the MSSA to be collected, while details are finalised for compensation under a buy back scheme
- Sell or gift the firearm to a person who has an E-Category licence and a ‘permit to procure’ the weapon
Will some firearms dealers be breaking the law if they have these MSSAs in stock?
Some firearms dealers only hold A-category licences. In order to comply with the law, they could sell their stock of semi-automatics to a Category E licence holder or return them to their supplier.
What are the statistics for firearms licences and firearms in circulation?
- There are 245,000 firearms licences
- Of these, 7,500 are E-Category licences; and 485 are dealer licences
- There are 13,500 firearms which require the owner to have an E-Cat licence, this is effectively the known number of MSSAs before today’s changes
- The total number of firearms in New Zealand is estimated to be 1.2-1.5 million
Video of media conference
87 Comments
Good job. I hope all those numb nuts who rushed out get a very low second hand price at the buy in. After all, they will have little value as they have no market to sell into.
Amazing what you can do in less then 9 years...
Sadly I think you'll find many of those that purchased in the last few days won't hand them back in. They likely knew this was coming and will not care.
Shouldn't be too hard if they paid by credit card or internet banking.
Good Point. Those that purchased with knowledge of a probable ban, will be exactly of that nature and inclination. But cannot the sellers provide relative details of the buyers as per the current law? That would be a good starting point. Or would that be an invasion of privacy under the bill of rights?
...no problem there.. ..........the Arms Act 1983 requires that dealers comply with regulations regarding record keeping, and must permit any member of the Police to inspect and make copies of any records.[100] Records must be kept of the details of each item received, manufactured, and sold, with each entry required to be made “at or immediately following the time of the transaction to which it relates” and every book kept for at least five years after the date of the last entry.[101]
The key word there is 'book' there are no requirements for computer records. I bought a SAR 15 a few years ago, and nothing was entered into a computer. Sadly I lost that rifle and my semi shotgun in a tragic boating accident. I'll never be able to replace them now.
The SAR 15 looks for all the world like an anti personnel rifle, what possible reason could you want for owning one of them?
If you say hunting then I might go take up boxing against three year olds.
So let me get this straight.
New information has lead to semi autos being considered a public safety issue so they are outlawed. The govt. then feels its right to refund every owner through a buy back as it's a new law and when th bought their guns they weren't to know they would be outlawed.
So following that logic, whenever the government increases earthquake standards on buildings due to new information that makes a building that was once considered safe and to code become considered dangerous, shouldn't the government pay to get to the new code standard??
Hahahahaha sorry but no. The Government is not banning people from owning buildings, but they are banning people from owning certain firearms that were purchased legally.
You could have a point if the government was paying gun owners to retrofit additional safety equipment to their weapons.
They are banning buildings under 33% nbs - if not removed from circulation (demolished or strengthened) in given time frame then yes exactly the same as these guns. Considering you can't even claim as an expense strengthening it's pretty hard to reconcile this government's decision making.
Worse still leaky buildings, when government policy coupled with local council failures lead to people being forced to fork out a fortune for shelter they've saved for years to afford - while recreational gun users get direct cash injections from tax payers due to government changing their mind.
On a gun note - this ban should hand happened after port Arthur ridiculous how incompetent politicians are, they'll only make moves if they can win immediate votes or in reaction to events
It's a practical move, who the hell is going to turn their guns in for nothing? Very few. It is merely expedient
Yes there is no use for a weapon that has capacities that are neither necessary nor justified. There will need to be some vigilance, for some of those that want to possess them nevertheless, are likely to go underground. Once the amnesty/buyback has run its course, would hope the authorities will actively follow all leads and locate and seize with energy.
yes how will they find them all as they have no register of who has what or are they going to visit everybody with a license and ask questions
sharetrader. The task is massive. 1.5m weapons, supposedly 15K MSSA but the number will certainly be much higher. They can easily be broken down and the parts stored separately. Even with considerable resources, it'll take years to achieve and will not flush out those intent on retaining their MSSA weapons - 'lost it down a gully' etc.
It's not a knee jerk reaction. Should have been 10+ years ago. Good job.
Should go all the way and have a universal buy back of all rifles. Then one would have to physically turn up in Wellington and explain why and how long one needs one. God Bless NZ.
.. there have been no mass shootings in Australia since 1997 , when P.M. John Howard cracked down hard on guns after the Port Arthur massacre ...
In the good ole US of A , they have a slaughter by an assault rifle toting num nut every week ... sometimes two a week ....
... you're right ... we should have copied Oz's stricter laws way way back in 1997 .... 50 lost lives too late ...
Don’t disagree but for the USA it’s too late. 100 years or more, too late. There are millions of unaccounted for guns, all over the nation. The underground, blackmarket is gigantic. Getting an automatic rifle or pistol illegally is as easy as a stolen watch.
Yes, says it all. I do feel for my homeland. Perhaps someday, somehow, someone will bring the US to its senses.
Hmm. Too bad for the animal that needs to be put down in a hurry. Cow with broken leg....sorry girl I gotta get a ticket to Welly first. Silly Tim.
Where's your .22?
You need a semi automatic for that?...How about calling a vet..or is that too humane for you?
You need an assault rifle for that? Pull the other one. You are going to be doing the deed at closer than point blank range, do you not own a humane killer captive bolt gun?
Belle is replying to Tim's comment about getting rid of all rifles... such ignorance about putting down large animals...
a .22 will bounce off a rams skull
a vet will cost more money on top of losing the animal and take time
not all animals that need to be put down are sitting still
"a vet will cost more money on top of losing the animal and take time"
Sorry but that's the cost of doing business - vet bills. If you cannot afford them, get another job.
So let me get this right, you riddle the cow with a semi-automatic while its limping or trying to flee for its life? Life on the farm has changed since I was little?
Firstly nobody mentioned using a semi automatic to put down an animal.
Vets are not hiding under every bush, should I watch the animal scream until a vet can get there? is that more humane for you? Cost ?? then I need to get a digger in to bury the animal.
I hate killing animals, everything I kill is done in the quickest most humane way I can and mostly that involves a rifle, poison is awful we don't use it.
Not sure what type of farm you were on when you were little? was it a fairy farm?
A 308 won't.
Yeah but you can save turning it into mincemeat till after you've killed it
Exactly, Belle. Just illustrates the yawning gulf between those whose farm/back country experience is limited, versus those who have to deal with animals (wanted or unwanted) most days. Five of us amateurs, using bolt-actions, got 7 of a herd of 30+ goats that were busy chomping through native regrowth in a gully a few years back. A coupla semis, and there would have been 20+. And then these types will bemoan the fact that possums, goats and deer are ruining the ecosystem......
The NRA threatened to interfere with our political processes. They did not seem to understand that no one wanted their "help". It's good to see that our politicians can get the job done without a mindless debate influenced by third parties that don't care about our well being.
I know a few people that will be disappointed at having to give up a number of their A and E cat firearms. Safety takes priority over fun.
I think the key is to stop nut cases from owning guns, sadly everyone has to suffer because of one person. It's ridiculous to assume that if a responsible person hands over their guns, it will improve safety in any way at all.People with an E cat. will still be able to own these, and pistols, but they get a very thorough vetting.
Fully support this move.
It is also equally important that we identify people who are a potential threat. As there is currently no record of such guns it will not be possible to ensure that all will be handed in.
To identify people at risk of similar offending - whether with a illegal MSSA or a gun of any other type - then we are going to have to pay the price of greater surveillance by government agencies. It is a price many seem prepared to pay and I hope the government also moves on this.
printer8. But how would you identify this person as a 'potential threat'?. No criminal history, his gun club associates saw nothing untoward. He travelled to some curious places but that would also apply to a large number of gun owners. His Pakistan trip would possibly have raised a flag but short of a compulsory browsing history review for every applicant, this type of cleanskin individual is not going to be flushed out, even with the most impractically rigorous process.
Yet another screw up.
They should have banned all Semi Automatics - like Australia. But no, it appears they have left .22 in the mix.
..you're being too harsh. They have got on and done this. If necessary, they can add a .22 later. But I see little need, a .22 would be a pretty week weapon for a mass killer. A car would be more effective.
Noncents. Even the bumbling jihadist Mark Taylor wouldn't try it on with a .22 cal. They are ineffective on large animals unless the shoot is carefully placed.
First: It also appears Semi Automatic shotguns have also escaped the ban.
Second: A .22 can and does kill, particularly at close range. (i.e. inside a room)
Third: terror isn't just about killing cleanly with one shot.
Fourth: And one I really don't want to even type having two kids under 5. Is that as we see in the states shooting is not just limited to adults.
Sure didn't stop several from being killed with a .22 semi-auto at Aramoana, or the two real estate agents recently killed in Northland by a nutter with a gun. No doubt there are plenty more, but I cbf with that morbid search.
I'm curious about the assualt rifle ban since none were used in the terrorist attack. The cynic in me would believe that the government was always against such things. But I think it's also politicians logic: something has to be done, this is something, therefore it has to be done. If we are thinking about national security then I think of much better use of $200m
So the Assault Rifle 15 isn't an assault rifle? Enlighten me.
The AR in AR15 stands for ArmaLite rifle after the company who makes it. It’s not an assault rifle by definition.
Time for all guns to be phased out of NZ. There's no place for guns no matter what type in a peaceful modern day society.
That comment must be based of the assumption that guns are only used to kill people. The overwhelming majority of guns in NZ aren’t used for that.
No nail guns?
Flare guns?
Tranq dart guns?
gun staplers?
But seriously. Deer, Tahr, Rabbits, Wallabies, possums all need to be controlled, and no, poison / traps aren't always an option.
Simplistic and lightweight thinking behind your comment. Less ideology, more reality please.
Nahh there are alternatives to guns for pest control without having to resort to gun use. Such as traps or even a crossbow would be better. Thankfully I've never heard of anyone going on the rampage with a crossbow for instance, guess it would be a bit too awkward since you could be tackled and stopped in your tracks during a reload.
Guns just make killing too easy, so I still think the world would be a much safer place without guns.
Yeah, OK. Great story.
The "A" stands for ArmaLite Rifle, which was the original patented weapon of this type. Once the patent expired in 1977 many, many manufacturers took up the design and so now they are commonly referred to as AR-15 style.
An important feature of an assualt rifle is that it has selective fire i.e. fires in full auto as well as semi auto. Automatic means that as long as the trigger is pulled it continues to fire. Semi-automatic, which the terrorist had, means that the trigger needs to be pulled for each round discharged.
Even as ex-military i wondered about the differentiation. I always understood that rifles such as the AR15 and it's ilk released to the civilian market (any where) varied from the military version by being semi-automatic only. In that one trigger pull, one round fired. The military version of the AR15 has four positions on it's fire selection lever; Safe, semi-auto, three round burst and full auto. Other rifles have different selections. As far as I am aware weapons capable of fully automatic fire have never been able to be owned by civilians. Frankly I cannot see the point. So what an "assault Rifle" is, is still unclear. Personally I think any weapon that is issued to military rank and file for combat should be considered an assault rifle.
Make no mistake though, slide action shotguns and lever action rifles can achieve a cyclic rate close that that of a semi-automatic, and small magazines are not much of a limitiation.
I think you will find that "assualt rifle" has a specific meaning as compared to other forms of battle rifles. As it came from the original German assault rifle i.e it was the name that Germans came up with and then translated into English. The Soviets copied the idea and we got the AK47 and it's successors. NATO dithered for a bit so the West got a battle rifle such as what we had the SLR which was not full auto. Eventually the US got the M16 a military version of the AR15. And we got the Styr Aug or a version of it which is an assualt rifle - intermediate cartridge, full auto, etc.
We can get the $200m back by selling them to American tourists at the departure lounge.
Well now, people call me cynical, but that beats me hands down!
My understanding is that the AR-15 military-style weapon used in this and many, many other mass shootings is often referred to as an assault rifle because that is what they have come to be known for: mass killings/assaults. But of course the NRA in the US refers to it as a "modern sporting rifle";
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AR-15_style_rifle
It is included in this ban put forward by the government.
Kate, the AR15 is called an assualt rifle because many in the media have no idea what they are talking about i.e. ignorance . Of course the media usually don't know what they are talking about in almost every single area that you know more about. There are areas where the media reports and it drives me crazy how wrong they are. Whatever your field is Kate I'm sure you have found the same - it's true everywhere. Interest.co.nz know business but firearms probably not and the PM not even close.
Yes. And when it is an area that you have a personal interest in - it does annoy. For example, with me, I grind my teeth every time I see Maori in its plural context with an 's' at the end.
With AR15-style weapons, I think MSM and the general population use "assault" in the non-technical sense in that they are so often the weapon used (often modified) in these mass shootings/assaults. And because I personally wanted them off the shelves and out of general public reach/circulation, I'm less sensitive to technical correctness. But I certainly understand where you are coming from.
Class E licence holders are still legit, and there will be a thriving black market amongst the criminule element for their own version of 'buyback'.....As there is zero register of arms, just of owners, it will be nigh-on impossible to verify, let alone acquire, every last one. Plus, to add to the confusion, magazines and other 'banned' items can be 3-D printed or easily fabricated - again, driving the ownership and production of such items out of the retail space and into garages and lock-ups. Still, the Appearance of Action is really all that counts to pollies.
You are too cynical.
Many Kiwis, myself included, were surprised to learn how loose the gun regulations were here, I had assumed we were loosely in line with Australia, but it was more loose then in line.
I think there is more to come, but one danger is a delay in making a decision; a NRA tactic used in the US, and was a UK problem after Dunblane.
1. A central computerised registry of both firearm owners and weapons.
2. Amnesty and buyback as in Australia. It was one great things John Howard did after Port Arthur. The stats on firearm deaths from homicide and suicide dropped significantly after. A buyback here will be expensive and I suspect Treasury may have been asked to cost out a preliminary estimate. There are 1.5 million civilian firearms in New Zealand.
3. More details are necessary as to what will be banned, more clarity about what is an MSSA, regulation/banning high capacity magazines etc.
4. Additional police resources to do this.
Macadder - '1. A central computerised registry of both firearm owners and weapons.'
Overseas experience is that it is hard to achieve more than about 50% accuracy when you attempt to create and maintain a central registry of weapons. We already have one for firearms owners.
I agree, and it made me think "so what is the difference between the US and us" and I thought maybe it is the culture, how they can, but we cannot, own guns for self defence, that they own pistols and they keep them in places where it is easy to lay their hands on them, not locked up and kids get hold of them and accidents happen. But also I thought they kind of develop a trigger finger, imagine themselves as super heroes on the end of an assault rifle and some end up at schools and such shooting people up. That our laws turn out to be little better than theirs apart from the reasons we are by law, allowed to keep them, that we are basically better people. I will take that.
PocketAces. Although it makes me feel like puking to cite Michael Moore on anything, I think one of the few good points made in ' bowling for columbine' was the distinction between Canada and the USA on gun crime. Both have high gun ownership rates but markedly different gun casualty outcomes. Clearly cultural attitudes have a strong bearing on gun crime. But I disagree that our licensing laws are 'little better than theirs (USA)'. It is much more difficult to get a license here, a fact that is being obscured by one loophole in our laws that politicians should have plugged long ago.
There is nothing to stop me speeding whenever i want. The law on speeding is trivial to avoid, if there's no cop behind you or speed camera ahead, go for it.
Yet after christchurch introduced 30km/h speed limit in the city centre, injuries dropped 36%.
To argue these arms restrictions will do nothing but give the appearance of action because they are not perfectly enforceable is nonsense. They will drastically reduce the availability of these weapons, and if Australia's 20 years and counting experience is anything to go by, completely eliminate mass shooting.
The Person. As a life time hunter I agree with you that this long overdue crack down will progressively reduce the risk. But the number of MSSAs, handguns etc out there which are under the radar and will continue to pose a threat for decades to come, should not be underestimated. If my limited experience of interactions with shooters is a guide, the number is large.
A quick look at Wikipedia shows Australia has had more "mass shooting" that new over the past 30 years. Perhaps more concerning is the NZ two worst recent mass shootings after Aromoana were carried out with a shotgun and .22 semi auto. Neither of which are currently to be banned.
NZ has a generally good culture around firearms and its gun owners have been very responsible but perhaps should have lobbied to restrict these weapons more when they had the chance, particularly access to high capacity magazines. Now there is a blanket ban with understandable public support its a bit late, the government will take this and run with it.
Banning firearms doesn't address the root causes or motives of extremists and they have plenty of other options available but it does take away the option of easy access.
I'll tell you why I don't use guns with any form of "automatic" or "semi automatic". I am here in the country for the next week will be out once or twice a day taking off rabbits. I use a single shot breech loading 410 shotgun and a bolt action 22. Some macho will mock the 410 as a toy, but it's not about feeling macho. It's killed alot of rabbits and it's killed many. Lets be frank, it can near blow them apart, they die violently
The 22 is effective for long range quiet sniping. I have to absolutely check the back ground first. The state highway is only a few hundred meters away. Who knows what else. I don't want to give into the temptation - which is strong - to spray another bullet or three without making that careful decision.
The shotgun is useful to kill the rabbit that lets you nearly stand on it before it bolts. I don't even carry the gun cocked. I can chech background first for a running rabbit. I don't think you can do that with a second followup.
You have to be aware of possible consequences. That can include putting a hole in some house or even blowing off your own foot.
I would have more restrictions on type of firearms than Ardern proposes.
KH. I agree with you for recreational shooting but I'm guessing you've not done pest control in high rabbit/possum density scenarios where semi autos are the only practical option. Two shooters on the back of a truck will clean up hundreds in a night with semis; you'd do only a third of that with bolt action rifles and spook the ones you didn't get, allowing them to breed. Mobs of goats, wallabies and aerial deer/tahr work are the only pest control justification for centre fire semis.
But Middleman. The scenario you describe in this legislation will be possible uder the new rules. But it needs to be professional.
But I ask you this. Have you ever been out at night when a few paddocks away one of the trucks you describe turns up. Possibly crewed by a few drunk boyos out for fun. Have you. ?
I have. It's not funny.
We are largely on the same page KH but you probably underestimate the large number of farmers and recreational hunters who undertake pest control but are not 'professionals'. It's common for farmers with pest problems to make part of the deal for recreational hunters accessing their properties to help with control. Re your drunk shooters - any idiot in my presence mixing booze with guns gets short shrift. I'm also wary of dudes toting an AK or AR for hunting. Some are great people with a genuine passion for ballistics (I'm not one of them) who are fanatical about firearm safety and gun storage but its the MSSA hunters with 'attitude' about society and authorities and who have that slightly 'removed' psychology about them who give me the creeps. Safely distinguishing between the two is beyond the ability of many cops and given there is very limited hunting justification for owning them, I've always supported a complete MSSA ban other than for a very strictly vetted group of bona fide enthusiasts. I was astonished that Bennett agreed to MSSA under Cat A and very surprised that Ardern further relaxed the rules. Both need to be examined on their decisions in my view.
Thanks middleman. - we largely agree. Notably about those types who have some strange over interest in these MSSA weapons.
But I have to say that I have been on those trucks and it informs my caution.
Good call from JA, expecially over shotguns and the .22s. Devil will be in the details however.... Can see a register in the future too.
Excuse my ignorance but I assume when they say "military style semi automatic rifles" they mean a semi-auto sporting rifle would still be fine? (e.g. the ever popular Remington Woodsmaster series)
My take is the Woodmaster would be banned as the only exceptions for semi auto are .22’s and shotguns. Unless you get an E cat licence?
Does it have a pistol grip? That is the defining feature.
Nope, a woodsmaster will end up being an E cat weapon, if its allowed at all. Centre-fire semi auto + removable magazine, not going to be A Cat.
Thats the way I'm reading it. Stock or pistol grip no longer matters. Centrefire+semiauto+detactable magazine = E Cat
E Cat = banned
Necessary, but too little. A lot more is to be done. What about a foreign national being able to get a firearms license? What about the consequences of policies that are socially, economically and racially divisive?
This a good start, please don't let it be all they do!
Well done, finally a government that acts quickly and takes a strong stance on such an important issue to protect people!
Good to see that the rest of the world has taken notice of this positive move. It makes the Americans with the constant mass shootings look like a bunch of money orientated amateurs, with their inability to bring in sufficient gun control.
The same government that recently relaxed the rules on MSSA purchases, making it no longer necessary to front up at the cop shop when you acquire another one.
Another equally impacting reaction / law would be to ban media or anybody else from publishing the name & image of alleged or convicted perpetrators of these types of mass murder crimes. The publicized infamy or notoriety of these perpetrators only fuels the fire in other idiots that want the same space in history.
They deserve to be erased from all records for their deeds.
Yes I agree on the whole the ban is a good idea but its really only to please the voters. If you sit down and analyse it, it will not be effective when it comes to the nutters. The guns will go underground as there has been no register as to who owns what so they are effectively untraceable. Even with a new register, its pointless unless the person who is attempting to legally obtain one is on the police radar. You have to remember this guy responsible for the Christchurch attack was not know to police for anything other than a couple of speeding fines. All in all, yes it reduces the risk of this happening again but I certainly would not get warm fuzzies.
I wouldn't say the proposed legislation gives me warm fuzzies at all - instead I feel mournful and bittersweet, wishing earlier recommendations of years ago had been implemented then.
I assume once the ban is legislated, then anytime any one of these guns are found they can be immediately seized by the Police and taken out of circulation with no questions asked. If the requirement to hand in the weapons for compensation is also legislated, I also assume that there will be a concurrent fine implemented after a certain period of time for anyone found to have not handed in their weapon. There may also be a tip line where one can anonymously report an address where someone thinks that banned weapons are stored. No doubt Gun Clubs around the nation will be visited by Police as well to explain the new law/requirements.
In other words, there are lots of ways to work toward the better, safer future envisioned by the legislation. I am so, so very thankful that our legislators have all come together on this.
After reading all the pro and con comments, I still don't understand why would anyone needs a AR15 for hunting. After all, it's an toned down version of a M16 military rifle, if anyone needs a semi-automatic for hunting, you might as well getting a few claymore mine to get the old deer!
ChairmanMoa. Short answer is that MSSA's are not needed for recreational hunting. Most people own them because they like the look and feel.
Yes it makes them think they are RAMBO
Guy I know came across a mob of 6 pigs the other day. With his AR-15 he got 4.
With a single shot he would have been lucky to get 2.
But yes, for deer etc, single shot should be fine.
Beautiful photo tribute during the two minutes silence, interest.co.nz.
I support our PM on this one. Good on her.
There are a few creeps who will try and slide past this law. They currently correctly assume they will get away with it. We need to lift the act on enforcement. Nothing like a couple of your mates spending a week in the slammer to change your view on what is ok.
Comments are now closed on this story.
We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.
Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.