When the Treaty was signed, pu and tupara (muskets and double barreled shotguns) were among the most valuable of all taonga under Article 2 (if it really does go beyond the real property interests listed as the New Zealand courts say). Article 2 assured the chiefs and all the ordinary people of New Zealand that they would have undisturbed exclusive use and possession of their taonga.
So if relations between Police and (rural) Maori break down, it is inevitable that some Maori will assert a Treaty right to be free from confiscation and possibly even licensing for firearms. Urban judges from leafy suburbs will look for some sophistry to reject that claim both in law, and morally. But they should not underestimate the power of a strong view that authority is wrong allied to a wide belief in historical right. We have seen that repeatedly. Myth becomes political reality when enough people believe the myth.
The Arms Act 1860 exempted Maori. I have not researched the history, but I suspect that reflected both practical common sense on enforcement, and recognition of a Treaty assurance of Maori rights to retain pu and tupara. Under the so-called right of development in Treaty jurisprudence, that would now extend to whatever is the modern equivalents (in relative effectiveness to other weapons?)
I raised this possibility in my last minute submission to the Select Committee. I imagine there will have been many, judging from the latency on the Parliamentary website template for submissions.
Irrespective of the strength of the possible treaty argument, a heavy handed law change that rural people see as unreasonable could have a high price.
I have been a hunter for 50 years. I have a large rural property. I know hundreds of fire-arms users. I was unconcerned by a move against genuine MSSAs and large capacity magazines. But the Bill goes much further.
Parliament will be largely unaware of the level of informal borrowing and use of firearms in rural communities, particularly among Maori, that occurs with indifference to current law let alone what is in the Bill.
I can attest from personal knowledge to the degree of non-compliance with law on registration of vehicles, and driver licencing. There is similar non-compliance with gun owner licence requirements.
I believe that the Police wisely avoid interfering where they feel there is likely to be no harm done. And with positive relationships, unless forced to act, they get cooperation and information from families that would be at risk if there was vigorous inspection or enforcement.
But Police will have little alternative but to enforce the new law, though thousands of gun owners could decide to ignore it, or worse, to hide their guns, or to offer them to relatives or others who will be willing to ignore the law change. Those firearms will become invisible, whereas at present, the Police can expect reasonable frankness about them.
A general problem when censorious children are elected to govern
I see this issue as yet another where the urban ‘woke’ have utterly tin ears.
New Zealand has avoided many irreconcilable political fights over competing values. Now an ignorant generation are looking for ways to anger their opponents by deliberately kicking sleeping dogs. Wise politicians pick no unnecessary fights that focus people on differences instead of on values they share.
Gun law has not been a tribal political issue here. My Select Committee 17 years ago reached a cross party consensus. But it is a badging issue in the US. So our “progressives” start the same chants to ape their US betters. They want to stick it to gun owners to show who is in charge – to anger “deplorables”. Whether the changes have any connection to a problem or a solution is immaterial to them. It is not so much ‘virtue signalling’ as IFF – identifying friend from foe.
From the same impulse they are trashing our 50 year old tacit deal on abortion (‘we’ll pretend we have a law against abortion and leave the issue alone, if you too pretend the same”).
They look for any issue they can to stick the coercive state’s fat finger up the nose of Christians – while excusing the ghastliness of Islamism, again to ape their US models.
They ended charter schools out of similar vindictiveness, thereby ensuring that whatever Hipkins does now in education will be reversed when he loses power.
And on free speech and so called non-binary gender and many other ‘me too’ (in its original sense) progressive causes their language, their solutions and their reasons are entirely derivative.
A consolation is that they are cementing their distance from the ordinary working people they have long scorned but claimed as the objects of their sanctimonious “altruism”.
RSS feeds available for 
It is reported by Police in their Departmental Disclosure Statement – date 1 April 2019 – that: “Police [consider that the Bill] does not affect Maori rights and interests protected by the Treaty of Waitangi” – yet the very Bill does impact the “ Rights and Privileges of British Subjects” imparted by the Third Article of the Treaty in a major way including Government confiscation of Private Property before any compensatory regimen has been established – for at present such a scheme is only Government promises with no substance. Shall history be repeated – AGAIN?
The second Article of the Treaty “Confirms and guarantees … the full exclusive and undisturbed possession of … other properties … which they may collectively or individually possess so long as it is their wish and desire to retain the same”. The third article of the Treaty clearly shows that in return for the transfer of their sovereignty, ALL the people of New Zealand shall be protected by the Queen (“Crown”) and that the rights and privileges of British Subjects be imparted to them.
It is notable that ALL British Subjects prior to 1840 already possessed these rights, privileges and obligations. They had them by birthright, passed on to them by their forebears who had enshrined these in Magna Cart and the 1688 Bill of Rights. All this laid out in the ‘Claims of the English People’ – a collection of State documents published during the reign of King William III (London 1701)
“May not the people be trusted to guard the King (“Crown”), their landlords and themselves? Can any accidental change of artillery (i.e. the change from Long Bows to the MSSA and/or ‘Assault Rifle’) be pleaded in bar to necessary defence of the Nation? Madmen indeed ought not to be trusted with weapons. But the care we took in preserving our rights (and privileges – if you must) against the encroachments of the late King shall ensure the old right of handling arms be entrusted to us.”
The talk – and proposed legislation – of banning, confiscating or compulsory purchase of any arms … let alone military style firearms … is as much a violation of the Treaty of Waitangi as the similar estrangement of Maori land that occurred in earlier times. The lack of principle is identical, despite the best intentions of our representatives in Parliament. It is not only wrong but evil, as future generations will become less free, far less secure and safe if such policies are implemented in this precipitate manner.