Skip to Content »

Firearms law amendment’s own goal

  • May 12th, 2009

The debate on radio this morning over firearms law  did not raise one of the explanations for the rate of non-renewal of firearms licences (despite retention of their guns by many who did not renew).

I can not tell how material it is as a factor, but I know as a matter of certainty that some of the non-renewal was because of  a fear that registration of firearms was a preliminary to a planned confiscation, along the lines of the 'buy-back' in Australia, and the UK.

It had become folklore in parts of our hunting community that confiscation was part of the same 'townie' movement that had seen fox hunting banned in Britain, and that led to frequent airing of the views of Philip Alpers on radio and TV.

Happily there is now much more trust of the Police, in no small measure attributable to the tireless liaison efforts of Joe Green and the commonsense of the Council of Licensed Firearms Owners, and its wise leadership by John Howat.

But the suspicion has not gone entirely.  A threatening Bill still lurks low on the Parliamentary order paper.

Early in my time as an MP I went on tour with the Law and Order Select Committee, to hear submissions on an Arms Amendment Bill that would have required the registration of firearms, as well as firearm owners. Some 6000 submissions were heard.

They made a deep impression and the Chair of the committee (Labour's Janet Mackey) was persuaded by the logic to advocate for much more sensible law. At the time, the official Police line was to oppose changes to what the government had proposed.

Subsequently they've been much more reflective of the common sense position advocated by the Council of Licensed Firearms Owners.


  • MikeE
  • May 13th, 2009
  • 11:39 am

The arms amendment act is insane.

It includes luncay such as requiring me to have a firearms dealers licence, and A Cat gun safe, if I was to be commercially importing barrels, triggers or sight rails for paintball markers.

That is assuming you class paintball markers as firearms like Joe Green does.. as opposed to the stock markers that are exempt under the Arms Act.

Thats something I’d like to see clarified!

  • DougE
  • March 14th, 2012
  • 9:17 pm

Since that time events have moved on with the ill-fated 'Check Your Stocks' police campaign which the High court found was 'incorrect' and based upon 'erroneous' Crown Law advice. An expensive court case was required to over-turn that campaign.
In response another Arms Amendment Bill (#285-1 of 2011) has been introduced to try and allow the changing of fundamental definitions in the Arms Act by mere regulation. All, it appears, in an attempt to negate the effects of High Court case and to pander to the whims of what appears to be an extremist anti-gun element in police management.
Nonsense like trying to 'redefine' the shape of a piece of plastic which makes up the pistol grip of a semi-auto firearm – an item declared a 'safety feature' by the High Court …
One used to laugh at the thought that the 'military' use of certain firearm features addled the mind of civilians and sent them mad – however, upon further reflection, the effect upon the 'official' mind seems to bear out this prepoterous precept … certainly in the case of those in police management!

Leave your comments:

* Required fields. Your e-mail address will not be published on this site

You can use the following HTML tags:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>