Survivalist Forum banner

The future of NZ firearms laws

14K views 41 replies 18 participants last post by  doctrox 
#1 ·
Before my question and for the benefit of overseas members who may read this, but are unfamiliar with NZ license system, I’ll give a quick summery of the NZ licensing system first. The situation is a bit fluid at the moment and there are some grey areas, but the basics are:

A-Cat License: Is the basic license and covers rim fire rifles (including semi auto’s with magazine capacity of no more than 15 rounds), shotguns (including semi auto’s with magazine capacity of no more than 7 rounds) centre fire rifles (including semi auto’s with magazine capacity of not more than 7 rounds, no flash hider, no pistol grip and no bayonet lug).

B-Cat endorsement: Is for pistol shooters and is subject to Pistol NZ membership, membership of an approved local pistol club and regular attendance (12 shoots per year).

C-Cat endorsement: This stands for ‘collectors’ (although I have heard it call ‘convenience’:rolleyes:) and basically covers everything else that does not fit in any other category. This includes select fire assault rifles, machine pistols, light machine guns, mortars, anti air craft guns, grenade launchers etc.

D-Cat License: This is for people that trade in firearms for business purposes; gunshop owners, gunsmiths, etc.

E-Cat endorsement: Is for MSSA’s (this is a purely NZ term for licensing purposes and means Military Style Semi Automatic). As the name implies it covers basically semi automatic assault rifles in their original form with flash hiders, bayonet lugs, pistol grips, no restriction on magazine capacity, etc. Select fire (full auto) rifles must have this function permanently disabled. This category also is used for semi auto rim fire rifles and shotguns than do not comply with A-Cat specs, due to magazine capacity or other non complying feature.

F-Cat endorsement: Is for employees of a Dealer, who handle firearms as part of their employment.

The license is for the person, not the firearm and lasts 10 years. There is a fee for a B, C or E Cat endorsement and once it is attached to your A-Cat licence it lasts for the duration of the licence. B, C & E Cat firearms do have to be registered, but there is no fee.
More information can be found here: http://www.police.govt.nz/service/firearms/arms-code.pdf
 
See less See more
#2 ·
Now finally on to my question (or it may just end up being a statement:xeye:)

I don’t want to start a debate on the US gun laws here, but I have been watching closely the recent developments in the US and the changes being proposed or implemented by various states. I have been amazed with how quickly this has unfolded and how broad in nature the proposed changes are. I always felt that their 2nd amendment was their ‘Joker’ card, so to speak and would trump any law. Having witnessed the various restrictions in the UK and read about the changes in Australia, I always felt that if they had had a 2A it would never have happened or at least the restrictions would have been resisted easier.

Another concern for me is the UN Arms Treaty and whilst I realise that the majority of people will see it as a way of getting nasty weapons out of the hands of bad guys in the worlds violent hot spots, it can easily be misused, as a tool to get rid of lawfully held firearms, used by law abiding civilians here.

I meet a lot of firearms users and talking to the average firearms user in NZ, does not fill me with much hope. They tend to be pretty insular, really only focused on their particular field of interest or maybe just a bit ignorant of the bigger picture. The general feeling is that if it doesn't affect them, they don’t care. That worries me, as has been proven: 'Divide & Conquer':(
I don’t participate in small bore competitions, clay pigeon shoots or 3-gun comp’s and if they happen or not, it makes no difference on my life. But if a local club was being forced to close or further restrictions were being proposed, I would absolutely assist in any way I could to help them and try and make my vote count. But generally I really feel that there is no real unity here.

I recently was a referee for an acquaintance that wanted to get his E endorsement, which I happily did as I always felt he was a level headed guy. He was successful with his application and a few weeks afterwards I was talking with him and he mentioned the ‘hand in’ policy regarding importing an E cat and I told him this was no longer in place and was being contested as being an unlawfully implemented police policy and not a requirement by law. His response to this was that “It was a shame because he always thought the hand in policy was a good idea and a way to control firearms users”. WTF:eek:….so you want to buy a new gun, so you have to throw another one away, with no compensation. I was stunned:taped:, I just managed to say “imagine if they made you do that when you wanted to buy a new car or new house”, but he didn’t get it.

There have been quite a few cases where the police have been challenged and found to have implemented improper police policies, instead of just getting on with enforcing the law. I have heard the gun guys are 13 nil so far. But there is only so much egg the cops will tolerate having thrown in theirs faces, before they fight back, hard. I am not talking about the average cop with his boots on the ground here, the majority of which, I feel do a pretty good job, in pretty sh**ty circumstances, but some of the policy makers are plainly agenda driven. Personally I feel NZ has, on the whole, got some pretty sensible gun laws and by and large they work well. But we are always just one ‘nut job’ away from further restrictions, as the politicians have little actual knowledge on the subject, have no interest in getting informed and will pretty much do anything that will get them votes.

Sorry if this sounds like a rant or is overly negative, that’s not the intention.
Does anybody else share my experiences or have another opinion from the NZ perspective…?

SL:)
 
#7 ·
".................what actually was your question, or is it an invitation for opinions?"
Yeah, sorry for the rambling post:rolleyes:, but the last line was 'Does anybody else share my experiences or have another opinion from the NZ perspective…?'

"If I moved my family to NZ, could I own an SLR"
HELL YES :thumb:

SL:)
 
#15 ·
A quick search brought up this data from the University of Sydney.
http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/new-zealand
First column is year, then total homicides (any means), then homicide with firearm.

2009: 134 11
2008: 111 7
2007: 56 5
2006: 61 7
2005: 69 9
2004: 51 6
2003: 58 6
2002: 67 8
2001: 50 7
2000: 57 7
1999: 51 6
1998: 60 4
1997: 68 12
1996: 61 9
1995: 55 8
1994: 65 16
1993: 54 6
1992: 76 15
1991: 69 12
1990: 76 23
1989: 75 15
1988: 62 22

They also state that civilian held firearms are approx 1.2 million in number, while the defence force and police have approx 42,000 and 2,000 respectively. Population is approx 4.4 million.

The above infomation is all from just one source and I haven't compared it with any other references, but it is on the internet and in colour, so it must be true:D::D:

SL:)
 
#16 ·
They should make the license harder and more expensive to obtain and reduce the criminal prices we have to pay for guns and ammo. If the US implement tighter gun laws, NZ will follow suit so we can be seen to be responsible in the eyes of the international community. Stockpile and Stash before it's gone.
 
#18 ·
Well put Swamp Locos - I wish I had been able to assess the situation as accurately.

It's a very valid point that our NZ Police seem to have the habit of making-up their own rules / regulations / interpretations of law and when challenged have tended to loose .. but it takes money and resources to challlenge them through the legal system AND if/when they keep-on loosing they will eventually react and go for changes to the current law.

- They may be already doing this - as I understand there is currently an AMENDMENT to the Arms Act passing through Parliament. I don't know the content of the proposed changes going through - but doubt that any of the changes will benefit shooters or the general public in any way - but will possibly give the pollies a warm fuzzy feeling for having 'done something about it' !
 
#19 ·
#20 ·
I am pretty sure you can have A-cats with pistol grips. SLRs, AR-15s AKs, Druganovs, Steyrs. I think our laws are ok, but the application process is BS. It comes down to how the officer is feeling on the day. I was declined because I am ex infantry, I told him a drink about a dozen beers a month (which wasn't true. I thought it was reasonable but apparently it is too much) and he THINKS I may become violent if I get sad, angry, depressed lonely, whatever. He recommended something bad happen to me to see how I may cope?

It's alright old prick will be retiring soon, and I can try again. In the mean time I'm a fully fledged bow hunter.
 
#22 ·
Hmm, Our AO is really good here, never heard a bad word said against them. Keeps the civilian vetters under control too, makes sure they are not over stepping the mark.

I have heard a few bad tales from other regions. I'm not saying some AO's have an agenda, but certainly have a different interpretation of the law. Unfortunately some people will just take what they are told at face value, without checking the facts themselves.

SL:)
 
#25 ·
For those that are unaware of the Bill that was passed just before last Christmas, here is a legal opinion that has been circulated in the last week or so.

What I find particularly disturbing is that the police can specify any make or model of firearm or any feature and class it as an MSSA and make it subject to the MSSA conditions at their leisure. The way I see it, it'll do very little to benefit public safety or address criminal use of firearms and if anything, will push more (currently legal) unregistered firearms under ground.

My ISP is on a go slow today, so I will come back later and tidy up the sentences :xeye:

SL:)


THE ARMS AMENDMENT ACT 2012
LEGAL OPINION – 8th MAY 2013
My name is Nicholas Taylor. I am a specialist firearms lawyer and have practiced
in the field of criminal and civil law relating to firearms in New Zealand for the
past sixteen years. Over this time I have appeared before the courts in New
Zealand on a daily basis in regards to firearm cases. I regularly advise shooters,
collectors and gun dealers nationwide on issues relating to firearms law in New
Zealand.
A major change has recently occurred in the law and will amend the Arms Act
1983.
The Arms (Military Style Semi‐automatic Firearms and Import Controls)
Amendment Act 2012 was granted royal assent after passing in Parliament on 11
December 2012.
No commencement date has yet been given, except in part 2 of the Act which
indicates it will automatically commence on 11 December 2013. It is more likely
that it will commence sooner by Order in Council (the Executive Council of the
government). There is a need to confirm the definition of freestanding pistol grip
in regards to military style semi‐automatics (MSSA’s) before the full Arms
Amendment Act 2012 can be commenced. This could happen at any time in the
next few months.
Please note that all references to sections of the law in this opinion relate to the
amended Arms Act 1983, as it will be after the commencement date of the Arms
Amendment Act 2012.
What is the effect of the Arms Amendment Act 2012?
a) Airguns, airsoft guns and paintball guns
1) You will need to apply for an import permit under section 16 (1) of the
Arms Act 1983 for any airsoft gun, paintball gun or airgun that looks like a
real gun (or of its type or kind) or looks like it is capable of full automatic
fire (or of its type or kind). The permit to import must be obtained prior to
import. It is a criminal offence with a penalty of one years imprisonment to
import a restricted airgun without a permit to import issued before it
lands in the country.
2) You will need an import permit to import any parts for any airgun,
paintball gun or airsoft gun that looks like a real gun (or of its type or kind)
or looks like it is capable of full automatic fire (or of its type or kind).
3) In order to get an import permit you must have a “special reason” for the
importation. This is very difficult to get and falls under police policy and
discretion (section 18 (2) of the Arms Act 1983).
It is highly unlikely that any import permits for restricted airguns will be issued
as the police have discretion as to what they consider “special reasons”, and the
very purpose of this amendment is to reduce the number of these types of
airguns, airsoft guns and paintball guns in New Zealand.
The term “special reasons” has existed in the Arms Act 1983 for many years and
the wider firearms community is used to this term in regards to the importation
of MSSA’s, pistols, sub‐machine guns etc. It has proven very difficult for shooters
and dealers over the years to show a “special reason” for import exists, as it is
discretionary and police policy on this shifts frequently and inconsistently.
If you are refused an import permit for not having a “special reason” this decision
can be appealed (section 62) to a District Court Judge; this can be a lengthy and
complex court action against the Commissioner of Police.
b) Military style semi‐automatics (MSSA’s)
Under section 4 of the Arms Amendment Act 2012, a new definition of MSSA will
be brought into effect; namely a change in regards to magazine capacity, which
can now “look” like it holds no more than 10 rounds of centre fire ammunition.
Any component part can now be described as a pistol grip in regards to semiautomatics.
Any make and model of semi‐automatic firearm can now be declared an MSSA
regardless of its features (section 74A by Order in Council).
Any further descriptive features of any semi‐automatic firearm can be declared to
be a feature of an MSSA (section 74A by Order in Council). For example, an M14
rifle or a Ruger mini 14 or 10/22 can be declared an MSSA by Order in Council
with no further consultation or reasons given.
General waiver
This opinion is a brief description of the main reasons for, and effect of, the Arms
Amendment Act 2012. It is not a complete review of all the amendments and
should be read in conjunction with the Arms Act 1983, the Arms Amendment Act
2012, and the Arms Regulations 1992.
If you need further information in regards to the changes to the Arms Act 1983 as
a result of the Arms Amendment Act 2012, please don’t hesitate to contact me.
………………………………………………
Nicholas J. B. Taylor 8th May 2013
www.firearmslawyer.co.nz
 
#30 ·
From the OP:

Does anybody else share my experiences or have another opinion from the NZ perspective…?
I'll share an "experience" of mine.

I'm an American, been at NZ for the last 6 years.

Britain serves as the absolute epicenter of global control. NZ is a huge social experiment in progress -- very Brit-ish. Abort ion, gambling, and prostitution are legal in NZ. And with only ~4 million people, any agenda “setbacks” can be contained and “remediated.” Unlike USA, they don’t vette the firearm in NZ; they vette the firearm owner. NZ is very “NWO.”

What has the NZ officiating body adopted to follow? Exactly where NZ stands, in law, in relation to the United Nations’ agenda of private firearms elimination, can be found by checking the chart here.

And not just at NZ, but globally, frequent hoaxes to condition the public are regularly implemented to further the world government’s (United Nations’) plan of global elimination of private firearms.

As an interesting indication of the agenda behind those non-carrying public NZPD officers, let’s check out the New Zealand Police Arms Manual. It is 160 pages in length and is found on the New Zealand Police website here.

Load it up and scroll down a bit to the last page of the table of contents (page 15), where you will find the title of the Manual’s final chapter, Section 19: Universal Registration of Firearms. Notice that, strangely, there are no subheadings, no page numbers, nothing listed, for this final chapter of the Manual!

Next, scroll down to the last page of the entire document (page 160), to the page titled Section 19: Universal Registration of Firearms. This is where the actual contents of the previously listed Section 19 would necessarily be found. Again, notice that there is nothing listed for that chapter!

The word "Universal" appears only twice in the Arms Manual, and I’ve just shown you both of those appearances. The word is used in the title of Chapter 19 (of 19 total chapters). But there’s nothing there (yet) in that final chapter!

We do understand the meaning of "universal." So what do you think those in NZ who drafted this document are waiting for, in order to "activate" that "empty" chapter? And when will it be "activated"?

Remember that the New Zealand government is in full compliance with the agenda of the emerging world government in the form of the United Nations. New Zealand has been a Member State of the United Nations since 1945!

The bottom-line agenda that NZ is following is thus: The world's smaller nations are to turn 100% of their armies over to the under-secretary of the UN Security Council. Of course, private firearms ownership is a definite no-no.

Now you know why the NZ police don’t carry in public (i.e. it's not PC), and also why they (and virtually all nations) will swiftly “eliminate” any perceived threats to the dictates of the UN’s nefarious agenda.

Public "debates"/meetings are held as desensitizing and conditioning tools, when the agenda is less likely to be accepted outright by the masses. And the outcomes of these "debates" are treated as irrelevant by those in control because it truly IS irrelevant to them. They proceed thereafter as they wished, in every instance-- armed with even further knowledge of their "enemy" -- us.

In any case, they sometimes slip up and reveal their hand to the diligent ala the NZPD’s currently incomplete/“blank” chapter on “Universal Registration of Firearms” as found in their Police Arms Manual.
 
#31 ·
From the OP:



I'll share an "experience" of mine.

I'm an American, been at NZ for the last 6 years.

Britain serves as the absolute epicenter of global control. NZ is a huge social experiment in progress -- very Brit-ish. Abort ion, gambling, and prostitution are legal in NZ. And with only ~4 million people, any agenda “setbacks” can be contained and “remediated.” Unlike USA, they don’t vette the firearm in NZ; they vette the firearm owner. NZ is very “NWO.”

What has the NZ officiating body adopted to follow? Exactly where NZ stands, in law, in relation to the United Nations’ agenda of private firearms elimination, can be found by checking the chart here.

And not just at NZ, but globally, frequent hoaxes to condition the public are regularly implemented to further the world government’s (United Nations’) plan of global elimination of private firearms.

As an interesting indication of the agenda behind those non-carrying public NZPD officers, let’s check out the New Zealand Police Arms Manual. It is 160 pages in length and is found on the New Zealand Police website here.

Load it up and scroll down a bit to the last page of the table of contents (page 15), where you will find the title of the Manual’s final chapter, Section 19: Universal Registration of Firearms. Notice that, strangely, there are no subheadings, no page numbers, nothing listed, for this final chapter of the Manual!

Next, scroll down to the last page of the entire document (page 160), to the page titled Section 19: Universal Registration of Firearms. This is where the actual contents of the previously listed Section 19 would necessarily be found. Again, notice that there is nothing listed for that chapter!

The word "Universal" appears only twice in the Arms Manual, and I’ve just shown you both of those appearances. The word is used in the title of Chapter 19 (of 19 total chapters). But there’s nothing there (yet) in that final chapter!

We do understand the meaning of "universal." So what do you think those in NZ who drafted this document are waiting for, in order to "activate" that "empty" chapter? And when will it be "activated"?

Remember that the New Zealand government is in full compliance with the agenda of the emerging world government in the form of the United Nations. New Zealand has been a Member State of the United Nations since 1945!

The bottom-line agenda that NZ is following is thus: The world's smaller nations are to turn 100% of their armies over to the under-secretary of the UN Security Council. Of course, private firearms ownership is a definite no-no.

Now you know why the NZ police don’t carry in public (i.e. it's not PC), and also why they (and virtually all nations) will swiftly “eliminate” any perceived threats to the dictates of the UN’s nefarious agenda.

Public "debates"/meetings are held as desensitizing and conditioning tools, when the agenda is less likely to be accepted outright by the masses. And the outcomes of these "debates" are treated as irrelevant by those in control because it truly IS irrelevant to them. They proceed thereafter as they wished, in every instance-- armed with even further knowledge of their "enemy" -- us.

In any case, they sometimes slip up and reveal their hand to the diligent ala the NZPD’s currently incomplete/“blank” chapter on “Universal Registration of Firearms” as found in their Police Arms Manual.
I was thinking the same thing when earlier in the year they started offering free e cat endorsements so that we could keep our pistol grips on the AR's, which would mean registration to the database=regulation/registration/confiscation. But given that this is a banana republic and our economic survival is based solely on the export of dairy and meat, this sector would still require the use of firearms for pest/stock control so it would be too hard to do. Plus from a logistical point of view it is comical to even think our government could pull something like that off.
 
#32 ·
I was thinking the same thing when earlier in the year they started offering free e cat endorsements so that we could keep our pistol grips on the AR's, which would mean registration to the database=regulation/registration/confiscation.
Yes @ the incentive offered in order to increase compliance.

But given that this is a banana republic and our economic survival is based solely on the export of dairy and meat, this sector would still require the use of firearms for pest/stock control so it would be too hard to do.
However, with NZ's increasing corporate ownership of farms, into fewer and fewer hands, it will only become easier to administratively eliminate the "pest/stock control" exception altogether.

Plus from a logistical point of view it is comical to even think our government could pull something like that off.
Keeping in mind that it's not "your" government, but the UN's. It's for the UN's dictates that NZ is lapdogging.
 
#34 ·
I really admire those of you who reside in New Zealand, a beautiful country. All the Kiwis that I have had the pleasure of meeting have been great people. Hope to visit on vacation one day, perhaps when the kids have left the nest.

So from my view in the state of Arizona, United States, here is what I see regarding the current state of gun ownership globally and New Zealand specifically. I agree that the world's governments collectively, definitely want a 100% monopoly on the ownership of all firearms. They are very clear that they want civilian ownership eliminated. They are working on achieving this goal and are in it for the long term.

That being said, here in the U.S. they are getting "push back" and are losing ground in a big way. The major social change in the U.S. has been based on ensuring that you have the right to defend your life my any means possible, including the taking of the life of another if necessary. Here is Arizona, we are a "Constitutional Carry" state which means you can carry a pistol openly or concealed without a permit from the state.

Most Americans have the right in most states, to use deadly force and have a recognized right of self defense enshrined in our laws. I have been told that in the U.K. this is not the case and that in NZ, self-defense is not a valid reason for obtaining a firearm license. Is this true and if so, what does NZ law say if you use a gun to defend yourself? I know you're not allowed to carry pistols concealed and would likely lose your license if you used a pistol in self defense.

In the U.S., the number of states that "Shall Issue", rather than "May Issue" Concealed Carry Permits have risen rapidly. What this has done is empower women, minorities, the poor and others who may have a desire to assume responsibility to protect themselves and not solely rely on the police, who show-up after a crime has been committed. The by-product of more people becoming responsible firearms owners is two-fold:

1. A drop in crime, especially crimes against people, like robbery and/or assault as any criminal may risk death, is his victim is armed. This is a general benefit to society as a whole.

2. As guns are more widely available, the "Myth" of More Guns = More Crime is shattered.

The danger as I see it for New Zealand is that in the long run, less people will be willing to go through the time and expense of becoming a licensed firearms owner. Since you are a "License Based" owner, you have no "Natural" or "God Given" right to be armed, your regulations can be tightened, fees imposed and raised and classes of arms eliminated or further restricted. The British example come to mind here.

In my opinion, the best defense is a good offense and unless or until firearms ownership and the right of self defense are the supreme law of your land, you will eventually lose all your firearms. It may take decades and decades, but it will happen.

Depending on the goodwill of the police and the government is a very bad idea.
 
#36 ·
I have been told that in the U.K. this is not the case and that in NZ, self-defense is not a valid reason for obtaining a firearm license. Is this true and if so, what does NZ law say if you use a gun to defend yourself?.
You will lose your firearms, never legally own one again, and will get firearms charges.

There was a reason that person was committing the crime in the first place. His mother might have not given him support while growing up or his dad might have called him a mean name.
While the US likes to attempt to eliminate crime and execute murderers, we like to have them sit down and talk about their feelings. If there is anywhere in the world you want to commit crime come to NZ and do it here. life is only 15 years if you behave.....
 
#35 ·
Most Americans have the right in most states, to use deadly force and have a recognized right of self defense enshrined in our laws. I have been told that in the U.K. this is not the case and that in NZ, self-defense is not a valid reason for obtaining a firearm license. Is this true and if so, what does NZ law say if you use a gun to defend yourself? I know you're not allowed to carry pistols concealed and would likely lose your license if you used a pistol in self defense...
"Special restrictions applied to restricted weapons and pistols, which needed to be registered. Self-defence was no longer a valid reason to have a pistol (Although the Crimes Act 1961 states a person can use "reasonable force" to defend ones self and/or property and nowhere in this act states a person cannot use a firearm for such purposes while the arms act does not mention "directly in words" one cannot use a firearm for self-defence) but the new sport of target pistol shooting has become more popular and pistol club shooters can own pistols with a special "B" endorsement." -- wikipedia

So the devil is in the details, yet again, e.g. what constitutes “reasonable force”? -- a completely arbitrary and capricious phrase!

The danger as I see it for New Zealand is that in the long run, less people will be willing to go through the time and expense of becoming a licensed firearms owner.
Making it “inconvenient” is, of course, a tried and true form of obtuse but ultimately effective form of control. Worse is the danger that registration has historically always lead to confiscation.

Since you are a "License Based" owner, you have no "Natural" or "God Given" right to be armed, your regulations can be tightened, fees imposed and raised and classes of arms eliminated or further restricted. The British example come to mind here.
Of course; that is the plan. What Caesar grants, Caesar can revoke. Again, his laws are completely arbitrary and capricious, subject to intrepretation of stooges in black robes. BTW, London, ala the “British model,” is not some quaint dying empire. Rather, London is the absolute epicenter of global control.

...you will eventually lose all your firearms. It may take decades and decades, but it will happen.
Of course. It’s part of the plan.

Depending on the goodwill of the police and the government is a very bad idea.
Corporations are, at law, dead things; by definition, they can have no “goodwill.”

Bottom line: In NZ, they vette the gun owner, not the gun. So as "universal registration" and ultimate prohibition of private firearms ownership come to fruition, they will NOT come to take the GUNS --- that gun grab will be incidental to the fact that they will be coming to take the gun OWNERS.
 
#37 ·
Before I moved to the states I had lived most of my life in NZ with sometime in Aussie too.
When I first came to the USA I believed NZ firearms laws to be superior to those of America. I no longer believe that to be the case, and I think NZ would be fine with looser laws and requirements.
 
#38 ·
There's a funny situation with the laws of pistol grips and such. You can get what looks like a regular AR15 but if you look carefully there's what's basically a thin wire from the butt of the pistol grip to the rifle butt. This constitutes a thumbhole grip!


Then you can buy high capacity, C-category magazines. No license needed. Just not allowed to stick them on your stuff. I noticed some AR15s on trademe today that were totally normal buttstocks and pistol grips and apparently it's because they're pump action?
Pic related, the pump gun mystery:
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top