New Zealand Gun Ban

[Falcon5NZ]

Most shooters AREN'T happy with the law. NZ has 250000 people that hold a firearms licence in a country of 5m people. Thanks to a stroke of the pen as of 3pm 21MAR19 any long gun bigger than a .22 rimfire CAPABLE of accepting a detachable mag bigger than 5 rounds is what we call an MSSA which requires an endorsed licence. As an MSSA is required to be registered, anyone that owns an AR-15, Mini-xx, M-1 Carbine or AK pattern rifle that WASN'T ALREADY registered as an MSSA is now illegally in possession of an MSSA. While there is an Amnesty and talk of a buyback police are encouraging people to surrender them early (makes for a cheaper buyback!)

This seems to have been put in place to prevent any sales of these while they sort out proper laws. There is some talk that they'll wipe out the MSSA category as well but we just have to wait and see and challenge the changes as best we can. We don't have a written constitution and certainly nothing like the 2A so no document to point at and say "You can't do that!"

 

[SIGSHR]

New Zeelanders will find that a police state doesn't have to be jack booted thugs and the 2AM knock on the door. Your friendly smiling bobbie combined with a lack of a Bill of Rights, a "Surveillance and Snitch" society, tremendous social pressure to conform and ostracism of those who don't will work just as well.

 

[buck460XVR]

Most shooters AREN'T happy with the law. NZ has 250000 people that hold a firearms licence in a country of 5m people.

That means 5% of the population there legally owns guns. Here in the U.S. it's more like 25%. Both are minorities to a great degree. Thing is, here in the U.S., anti's are also a minority to a great degree. What helps us keep our guns is those who are neutral to gun ownership and our 2A. If it would ever get to the point that antis become a majority.......nuttin' in the 2A is gonna help. That is why portraying a positive image of gun owners is so important. Not to change the minds of the antis, but to keep from changing the minds of those neutral.

We here in the U.S. have a long history of easy access and a plentiful supply of firearms. That is not the case in much of the world. One reason our outlook/mindset on firearm ownership is the way it is. Many folks living in countries where firearm ownership is more controlled than it is here in the U.S., having lived where firearm ownership is not as accepted, know of nuttin' else. Kinda like how women and their rights are treated in other countries. Kinda like how some countries view dog and monkey as a food delicacy. Folks need to realize, that every country is not the U.S. and we need to quit trying to make them as such. That's the kinda thing that keeps getting us in trouble.......

 

[davidsog]

Countries like the British Commonwealth have a political system in which it's easy to steamroll and bum's rush into law whatever they want.
What Rights they have are due to laws passed by a parliament and to tradition.
What one Parliament can make into law, another can un-make just as easily.

Our Founding Fathers were not fools and were in fact some of the greatest geniuses of all time. What's so amazing is that so many were in one small colony at one time.
They left us two of the most incredible systems of all time.....
A written Constitution not subject to a quick change without the people's consent.
And a political system specifically designed to NOT allow laws to be quickly changed.

Since the Constitution is not a traditional law passed by a political body, it can't simply be changed because a prime minister or parliament want it changed.
The Constitution over rides laws that conflict with it.
So, congress could pass a law tomorrow banning all firearms and it would have no legal effect because of the Constitution.

The bottom line is America is not NZ, England, Japan, Canada, or anywhere else.
A good read on why America is not, is the book "The Samurai, the Mountie, and the Cowboy" by David Kopel.
America was born different then any other country. Of the other countries only America won it's own freedom, and the founding fathers clearly saw how other counties were ruled by the aristocrats.

They gave us a Constitution to restrain the government and force the government to respect the Rights of the people.
One of the key Rights was an armed people that would insure that we wouldn't have a prime minister just announcing that one of their freedoms was no longer available.

The Left just don't understand that the Constitution is not an ala carte menu where you can say "Give me a helping of Number One, and a helping of Number 3, hold the Number Two".
If you do that, don't be surprised if one of your favorites is not on tomorrows menu.

Someone recently said that there's nothing in NZ but a lot of cattle and sheep.
He was very right.

We're not (not all of us) sheep, we're free people
While NZ is not America this is appropriate so I'll leave you with this from Sam Adams.....

“If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.”
― Samuel Adams

Well put. My heart goes out to our NZ neighbors. Seems to be situation of one misfortune after another.

 

[stinkeypete]

I prefer revolvers, pumps, bolt actions, break opens, and levers to semi-autos. I have a few semiautos but no magazines greater than 10 capacity. I don’t feel any need for more.

If one wants to bring up some sort of modern day militia argument, consider that we all accept the rules set down by the NFA.

As Americans, we don’t have the freedoms of those 3rd world counties where anyone that can afford it can buy full auto, rpgs, gun ship helicopters and fully operational battle tanks. Any well organized militia has these things.

NZ is a really nice place and it’s tragic that hatred touched it’s citizens.

 

[Nathan]

Those in NZ are at a real crossroads. In a superficial populist way, gun bans seem to make sense. If they really made sense, why wouldn’t those banning guns eliminate them from their lives first? Those asking NZ to ban guns are some of the most gun protected people in the world and they are not giving up even 1 gun. Think about that.

The choosing of a gun ban in NZ will show their true character as a people. Now is the time to rise up NZ. Let your true character be known. The world is listening.

 

[tipoc]

The NRA has issued an update on this...

On March 21, the New Zealand government issued an order in council that immediately reclassified certain commonly-owned semi-automatic firearms as “military style semi-automatics,” or MSSAs. The order re-defined MSSAs in statute to include the following,...

However, this is a temporary measure. In a statement to the public, Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern made clear that the orders in council were a “transitional measure until the wider ban takes effect,” and further legislation is still being drafted.

Ardern noted that there will be “a ban on all military style semi-automatics (MSSA) and assault rifles in New Zealand.” Going further, she noted that, “related parts used to convert these guns into MSSAs are also being banned, along with all high-capacity magazines.”

https://www.nraila.org/articles/20190322/us-politicians-cheer-new-zealand-gun-confiscation

In 1776 in the U.S. our ancestors made a revolution. Without that we would not have been able to enact, defend the Bill of Rights and expand it's protections to all people. It took a revolution to do that not a negotiated settlement where we were a protectorate for a few generations till granted formal independence. I don't know much about NZ history or law or Australia's either but the NRA's explanation seems adequate for the moment.

Here we have Executive Orders by the President. Not as sweeping perhaps but also too common.

tipoc

 

[PhotonGuy]

Heard on the news today that New Zealand is banning all military style rifles and an immediate ban on the sale of parts to make them down the road. Also a gun turn in (buy back) to be put in place.

I fully expected this. After all Australia did the same thing long ago. I am guessing the people that want to do this here will be watching and saying "we can do the same thing" and the world will be safer.

When will they learn that bans don't stop crazy or eliminate hate?

In New Zealand they're punishing the many for the actions of the few, not something that ever should be done in the USA.

 

[dajowi]

"acknowledge the fact that a mass shooting could not be done with a pump shotgun, a lever action rifle or a couple of revolvers..."

A public mass shooting is an event where someone selects four or more people indiscriminately, and kills them. A 5 shot revolver is enough.

 

[Dfariswheel]

The man who shot up the Navy Yard a couple of years ago was armed with a Remington 870 pump shotgun.

 

[44 AMP]

A public mass shooting is an event where someone selects four or more people indiscriminately, and kills them.

Depends on who is doing the counting. Some media people are reporting more than two people SHOT as a "mass shooting".

The FBI has a different set of criteria.

 

[Don P]

The man who shot up the Navy Yard a couple of years ago was armed with a Remington 870 pump shotgun

IIRC gentleman in a Home depot rental pick up truck did quite a bit of damage and killing in NYC. Folks hell bent on mass carnage will use whatever means that they can get their hands so in my opinion the bans do nothing but punish the law biding citizen

 

[KyJim]

The Left just don't understand that the Constitution is not an ala carte menu where you can say "Give me a helping of Number One, and a helping of Number 3, hold the Number Two". If you do that, don't be surprised if one of your favorites is not on tomorrow's menu.

DFariswheel --- I love this sentence and hope you don't mind if I keep it in my back pocket for occasional use.

 

[ThomasT]

If you remember Charles Whitman in 1966 killed 17 people and injured 31 IIRC and did most is his work with a Remington model 700 in 6mm Remington. Then later switched to a M-1 Carbine before he was killed with a 6 shot revolver and a pump shotgun. He killed has wife and mother with a knife.

It was the attitude and desire that made this possible. Not a certain style of firearm.

 

[buck460XVR]

If you remember Charles Whitman in 1966 killed 17 people and injured 31 IIRC and did most is his work with a Remington model 700 in 6mm Remington. Then later switched to a M-1 Carbine before he was killed with a 6 shot revolver and a pump shotgun. He killed has wife and mother with a knife.

You are just verifying the reasons folks are in favor of the ban. Whitman's attack lasted 96 minutes and he killed 17. The NZ shooter killed 42 people in his first attack....... in 6 minutes.

It was the attitude and desire that made this possible. Not a certain style of firearm.

You are correct sir.

But what if Whitman had a semi-auto complete with high capacity magazines? What if he had a .50BMG rifle which would have extended his ability to kill from his vantage point in that tower, from a few hundred yards to a few thousand? Was he not limited, in theory, because of the firearms available to him at the time? I'm guessing this is what some folks theorize about gun bans.

I'm not proposing or condoning gun bans of any kind. I just understand where some folk's mindset is coming from. I support 2A and fully support the right of folks to possess whatever firearms they are able to legally possess. But I also know that this is nuttin' but preaching to the choir when I voice this opinion here on a gun forum. As a hunter, I know why it is many of my brethren prefer semi-automatic weapons with multiple rounds in the mag as opposed to SS platforms. Why is it so many waterfowl hunters are in favor of having more than 3 rounds available to them? Comes down to firepower and killing capability. Easier to shoot more birds with a gun with more rounds that cycles quickly. Folks in favor of platform and Magazine restrictions believe the same thing is true when it comes to taking human lives.

Still, like the old Neil Young song......"shelter me from the thought that pulls the trigger".

 

[44 AMP]

I just understand where some folk's mindset is coming from.

where some people's minds are, is "somebody did something bad with it, so BAN IT!!!"

This isn't restricted to just guns, but that's where we see it most often.

But what if Whitman had a semi-auto complete with high capacity magazines?

Whitman DID have a semi auto with a "high capacity" magazines the M1 Carbine.

What if he had a .50BMG rifle which would have extended his ability to kill from his vantage point in that tower....

Shooting people at long range isn't any less illegal than shooting them at shorter ranges.

Why is it so many waterfowl hunters are in favor of having more than 3 rounds available to them? Comes down to firepower and killing capability. Easier to shoot more birds with a gun with more rounds that cycles quickly. Folks in favor of platform and Magazine restrictions believe the same thing is true when it comes to taking human lives.

They do believe that, but they seem it ignore the SLIGHT difference between GAME LAWS and the rights of people who are not MURDERING people...

Sure, you'll probably kill fewer people if semis and full size magazines are banned. Unless, of course, one uses GASOLINE or AIRPLANES!

OK, so once again, we see how we are all treated as no more than irresponsible children, who cannot be trusted. Someone abuses something, take it away from everyone! (unless, of course, they work for the government in which case, they get to keep them and use them "in the line of duty"...

Seems like the other part of the mindset is to punish the innocent, whether the guilty is out of reach, or not. Just take these "bad things" away from everyone, we'll all be so much better off...
or so they keep telling us..

 

[buck460XVR]

where some people's minds are, is "somebody did something bad with it, so BAN IT!!!"

oh...I agree.

This isn't restricted to just guns, but that's where we see it most often.

Could be, guns are where we as responsible gun owners notice it the most. But again, I agree, the same mindset is used often. One reason it's easy to understand why it's being used there in NZ.

Shooting people at long range isn't any less illegal than shooting them at shorter ranges.

True, but, accuracy and deadliness at extended range can make for more dead bodies. One reason Whitman's M1-Carbine was not as effective as his model 700. One would have to think that sniping from long range would be a scenario that will become more common as security tightens up on softer civilian targets. Then odds are, we will see a push to limit range of legal weapons.

They do believe that, but they seem it ignore the SLIGHT difference between GAME LAWS and the rights of people who are not MURDERING people...

True, but the bottom line is, the advantage is still the same.

Sure, you'll probably kill fewer people if semis and full size magazines are banned. Unless, of course, one uses GASOLINE or AIRPLANES!

Again, an argument wasted on the choir. Like I've said, I'm not endorsing the banning of any firearm in our country that is legal to posses now. Nor do I see the banning of so called "military style" firearms in NZ as being the end of mass killings/shootings. I do however, understand that folks, when looking at the horrific aftermath of the mosque shootings, want to do something to make themselves feel safer and more secure. Kinda like folks who put a deadbolt on their front door that has a full length window and two sidelights. Will either stop someone who really wants to defeat it? No, but it probably will make some folks sleep better at night.

 

[davidsog]

I do however, understand that folks, when looking at the horrific aftermath of the mosque shootings, want to do something to make themselves feel safer and more secure.

Yep. And history is filled with collassal mistakes made in the name of safety and security filtered thru the lens of mass hysteria.

Reichstag Fire and Nuremberg Laws all based on the need for safety and security.....

To paraphrase another poster on these boards....

For "Safety and Security" I think we should just allow Police Officers to enter any home they wish anytime they wish on the possibility their might be a crime going on. The public would be much safer.

Might stop some mass shootings before they get past the planning stage!!

 

[silvermane_1]

IIRC gentleman in a Home depot rental pick up truck did quite a bit of damage and killing in NYC. Folks hell bent on mass carnage will use whatever means that they can get their hands so in my opinion the bans do nothing but punish the law biding citizen

Exactly there Don P, i like the way you think, i wish a lot more "supposed" pro-2A folks would think like that, heck look how many "supposed" pro-2A folks say "i support the the 2nd Amendment, but...".