ACT was voted AGAINST by the vast majority of those who voted ... their gun business owning/gun lobbyist Minister should NOT be in a position to IMPOSE changes via sneaky Order in Council rather than through Parliament, & roll back legislation that will probably benefit them financially, exclude valid interest groups from discussions, & use the desperation of Luxon et al to have power in excess of their public support on the issue - the changes after the Mosque massacre were broadly supported by MOST NZers regardless of politics (apart from McKee & her minority "mates") She has NO MANDATE of any description to put more NZers (Police included) in future danger by rolling back sensible gun regulations.
I didn't vote for the GREENS when they were a coalition partner with Labour, but did admire their recognition that they were a MINORITY partner, and while fiercely advocating at times, didn't use their power to blackmail the govt into allowing them to do stuff AGAINST the public interest.
By demanding certain portfolios/ministerial positions/pieces of legislation BEFORE they would support National taking power (same with NZ1st) - it is written down in their coalition agreement in black and white.
I am a licensed firearms owner. My license expired after 10 years, and when I returned from oversees I had to go through the entire process again to renew it. Part of the vetting and re-vetting process was rigorous. It felt emotionally invasive and uncomfortable, however I believe it is entirely necessary. The part of the process I am referring to is the interview conducted in your own home by a Firearms Regulation Authority officer. I was asked very personal questions about my habits, the nature of my romantic relationship and state of mental health over an extended period of time. As uncomfortable as it is, this is a valid part of the process and quite obviously extremely important. I also was required to provide two references. One from a family member who had known me all my life, and the other a licensed firearms owner of good standing who had known me for over 10 years. Both my referees were also interrogated in great detail about my character and mental health. The point I am getting to here... is that what happened in Christchurch has nothing to do with licensed firearms owners in New Zealand and everything to do with incompetence and negligence in the vetting process of Brendon Tarrant. He slipped through the crack. The particular safety officer involved in his vetting process was that 'crack'. If Brenton Tarrant had been subjected to the same intensive assessment process I and other license holders I know have been, he would not have been issued a license. The major problem with guns in New Zealand is of an illegal nature, and in my opinion Mr Cahill should be spending more time working out how to get them out of the hands of unlicensed criminals than writing letters to Mr Luxon complaining about the extensive industry experience and alleged "secret campaigning" of Nicole McKee. Instead, someone could shine a light on the terrible 'secret' incompetency that occurred in the particular vetting process that led to the tragedy which occurred in Christchurch. I believe Minister McKee is simply trying to protect the right of licensed firearms owners to not be viewed or regarded publicly as criminals. With all this deflecting of responsibility it appears to be the license holders who cop-the-flack of negative public opinion for what was indeed the 'devastating oversight' of one particular individual within the safety authority.
Well, good that the vetting process is stringent INITIALLY, and with all due respect, the gun the perpetrator used is what made the shooting so deadly. It is a multi-faceted issue on this occasion. But mental health & family dynamics isn't a static thing - I know personally (& through many unfortunate widely publicised hostage & shootings) that a "responsible" gun owner one day might be a danger to others down the track. Limiting what types of guns are legal does at least 4 things
1) "responsible law-abiding gun owners" won't buy them, sell them, import them, own them so they can't be stolen by "criminals"
2) "responsible" gun owners seeing illegal guns will report them (surely?) and less will be in circulation
3) Police know IMMEDIATELY if such a gun is illegal without needing to check any data base etc. - in dangerous situations this can be the difference between life & death i.e. YES - we are dealing with a criminal element & NOT a "responsible" gun owner who will co-operate with them.
4) The AMOUNT of damage one gun and one perpetrator can cause to human life is exponentially less, despite their mental or legal status.
Finally, the USA has proven statistically the difference the TYPE of gun can make to the damage a criminal or mentally unwell person can do. Also, Mr Cahill is the union rep - he is advocating for the safety of his members & is not personally in a position to be removing guns from criminals???
Which of your 4 things would NOT be addressed by simply moving centrefire semi-autos (those with detachable magazines or even all of them) to E-category?
No much better to have a former airline ceo run NZ into the ground just like the airline?
Think the point of being a minister is to consider all aspects and move in a direction of the greater good. Not to only discuss your own area of interest and do what you want.
Exclusion is not consideration.
ACT got funding from NRA and now its payback time on top of payment by this government to the tobacco industry etc. Democracy is the casualty.
Where is the proof ACT accepted donations from the NRA?
What i am happy with is that you have the most experienced person on guns involved to turn back the poor kneejerk reactionary policies put in place by the last bunch of no hopers that even made people hand in classic guns from the 1800's because they no longer complied. Utterly ridiculous to have to hand in small bore rifles because the law was so poorly written and executed...most likely because no one in labour would know which end the bullet comes out of.
- Does the environmentalist OWN/have a financial interests in the climate he/she is advocating for? Were they leveraging their small electoral vote to exercise power over Luxon et al to get what MOST OF AOTEAROA doesn't support & DIDN'T VOTE FOR? Well, no!
- Does the teacher OWN/have a financial interest in the school buildings, the teachers, the students, the curriculum they are overseeing? Well, no!
- Does the former union leader OWN/have a financial interest in the employers, employees, & higher productivity of a harmonious working relationship between them? Well, no!
- Does the current person advocating for loosening gun ownership laws etc. HAVE A FINANCIAL INTEREST IN THE LEGISLATION & BEHIND THE SCENES RELAXATION OF RULES SHE IS RESPONSIBLE FOR OVERSEEING/IMPLEMENTING? Hell yeah!
"Financial interest" is a specified & globally recognized "conflict of interest" that can be, and is, valid in a court of law. And in this case, "seeking the acclamation of friends and followers, or the delivery of favorable policies for former employers and colleagues" also blatantly applies to the person in question ...
But you don't want discussion about how the current ACT Minister and her former occupation isn't really that exceptional or different from other Ministers and their backgrounds?
A couple of issues… there are a hell of a lot presumptions going on as act amendments aren’t even written yet. (Note above comment ”without reading it yet”. … 🤦🏼♂️
This displays the biases and ignorance on the matter perhaps from “96% of people who don’t have guns” and reinforces the requirement of a minister with actual knowledge on the subject to deliver Fair and Reasonable gun law.
Consultation!! You want it now? I distinctly recall the feeling of being utterly cut out of the consultation last time this was discussed.
Undemocratic!! No no, ACT and minister McKee were elected in an election last October.
As pointed out by Mr Cahill the Police are absolutely stake holders on the issue of “illegal firearms”. No question of that. One could argue that tweaks to legalisation covering Legal Firearms owned by the law abiding citizens effects them more on the admin side if at all
If reading over 13000 submissions (from memory) over one single weekend in 2019 is real consultation, then the current process is almost a bureaucratic quagmire! :)
Hopefully one thing that comes from this process at least is removing administration of firearms licencing and registration and so on from Police to a stand-alone entity, like NZTA for driver licencing and car registration. Leave Police to get on with Policing, have specialists in charge of a specialist area.
"And it’s illustrative of McKee’s orientation to the process that when the Association asked for copies of the consultation documents, her office told them that they would need to make a former Official Information Act request." This works as an illustration of her office's ignorance of the Official Information Act and what a request is under that Act. Or that there is a level of contempt for following the law?
This is something I once wrote regarding Casey Costello's passion for Philip Morris:
"A track record of deception is becoming evident in the Government’s Coalition alliance. Ministers across all parties have been found to either lie without contrition, and/or act unlawfully and unreasonably. The rails are coming off quicker than a marshmallow induced fantasy train ride as the conductors throw caution to the wind, in pursuit of their goals. But as the evidence piles up, and the Government continues to show scant regard for Kiwi lives, well-being, and our future, what consideration is due from us as voters, residents, citizens?"
That was:
1. Brooke Van Velden lying to the NZ public regarding the Environmental Commissioner's words,
2. Chris Bishop found to have acted unlawfully and unreasonably
3. Casey Costello found to have acted contrary to the law
🙋🏾♀️I KNEW I had seen the receipts somewhere ... Luxon initially presented as possibly competent but just misguided by those with different political leanings, but has rapidly descended into definitely incompetent to lead a coalition govt where the minor parties are over-leveraging their electorate share to impose things very few voted for.
The Police were the incompetent ones who enabled the Christchurch shooter to get a gun license, when his license application was incomplete, and he never should have gained access to guns. Police are too incompetent to trust.
The problem Mark is that even if that were true, which I haven't examined, it doesn't mean that police input or ownership is now moot. i.e. It sounds more like a cover excuse for why police should be ignored - no they shouldn't.
They not only have practical experience on it and understand the risks, but they also have to police the laws and put their lives on the line for it so it seems bizarre that this gung-ho pro-gun lobbyist McKee wants to ice them out, and Luxon to suggest that they should join the queue to be heard along with the public.
Also, as I understand it, the core issue around gun management has been funding and prioritisation given scarce resources, so it's always important to look at the context of a topic. YMMV.
Finally, bizarre that Luxon, the apparently pro-law and order male, keeps saying he cares about crime on one hand, but on the other gave the portfolio to a very well known gun lobbyist - and keeps wanting to push police morale down the drown.
Since the changes to the Arms Act in 2019, what has happened to firearms crime? Given we care about crime.
Also, it's important to distinguish between the Police, as an organisation, and the Police Association as a lobby-group led by an "anti-gun lobbyist" (to use the inaccurate but preferred terminology). Police Association should have their say when it goes out for public consultation, Police must be involved from the very start.
I think shooting is an olympic sport, and we need gun enthusiasts like McKee involved to represent the gun owners, who had no involvement when Ardern banned all their guns. I think the law-abiding public gun owners deserve gun laws that are fit for purpose, and it was clear in this mornings interview that Jack Tame is not a gun owner. It will be hard to satisfy everyone, but people shouldnt be made to feel guilty for owning a gun.
It doesnt sound like you had any firearms confiscated when Ardern changed the regulations. I am guessing you are an anti-gun lobbyist who has never owned a gun. And what does YMMV mean ? I could try looking it up.
It's obvious to me that if McKee became an MP because ACT wanted the gun-lobby onside, and the government is the government partly because ACT negotiated a review of fire-arms legislation as part of the coalition agreement, then McKee was always likely to get the role. Is that a disservice to the public - yes, if her behaviour is favouring her old lobby group , which looks to be the case. But Luxon won't move unless there's a big groundswell of public dissatisfaction, and probably not then either, as he's in hock ACT, and there's no election for another two years. Always look for the Realpolitik.
A classic tail wagging situation in this coalition. That the govts agenda has basically been hijacked. Who is the senior coalition partner? ACT? If this is an example of how good Christopher Luxon's negotiation skills were, it's a clear F for Fail.
The Police were responsible for giving the foreign Christchurch shooter a gun license, when his application was incomplete, and he should never have got a gun license. They shouldnt be complaining because they caused the shooting tragedy. Our gun laws are being decided by Muslim immigrants, and foreign terrorists, and poor Police decision making. It is time the innocent gun owners got a say.
What we do need in the role as a starting point, whether red or blue, is someone who understands firearms as they are a technical and nuanced issue, as well as emotive.
Stuart Nash unfortunately was particularly unsuited - he talked about 'semiautomatic ammunition' in speeches for example. If you don’t understand that mistake, you aren’t really credible.
We had a readymade option in E-category to resolve this issue; unfortunately I think those involved in decision making at the time of the law changes simply didn't know what that was.
And 'Police' is not an infallible marker of credibility on this issue unfortunately - they gave us the nonsensical 'Military Style Semi-Automatic (MSSA)' term. One of the best things that will hopefully happen is the removal of The Firearms Authority from Police to be a stand-alone organisation, like NZTA.
(Also - in the interests of precision and accuracy, and not being misleading: MSSAs are NOT banned, they were just moved to a new licence category)
Nit-picking about terminology doesn't change the need for gun reform after the Mosque Massacre highlighted what the (then) current status was. The point was the EFFECT of rules & regulations, not understanding "firearms as they are a technical and nuanced issue" i.e. not what the gun is CALLED, but what the gun DOES. I have been reading an author whose main protaganist is a gun dealer & goes into excrutiating details on this subject, but I just need to understand "criminal with gun=bad" "some types of gun=bad/useless for hunting" "some types of gun=only needed if you want to kill MULTIPLE PEOPLE"
Ministers do NOT need total in depth knowledge of the subject as long as they take wide-ranging advice, take note of any research both for and against, have common sense, and are motivated by doing their best for ALL of the citizens, and not just vested interests - theirs or their mates/financial backers etc.
That 'terminology' was supposed to describe function - that was the mistake Police made. And what a gun *does* is the nuance. That is what the new rules missed unfortunately. Some semi-autos were not affected, some bolt actions were.
Given that, why would expanded E-category not have been a better solution?
And out of interest - which types of affected firearms are useless for hunting?
"shooting clubs and gun ranges, which until then were subject to virtually no rules."
You know that isn't correct Bryce, surely?
*All* the firearms and public safety legislation applied to shooting ranges, and always had. What the changes in 2019 added was almost entirely only administrative rules. For example, all committee members had to have a FAL even if they never ever fired or even touched a firearm.
The key issue that an anti-gun lobbyist (to use an odd term but it seems to be the chosen language) like Chris Cahill never addressed is - what was the problem with shooting ranges? What injuries/deaths/crimes actually happened prior to the rushed changes?
Why all the fuss? The odd person is killed by guns each year but hundreds are killed by licensed vehicle drivers each year. Just about anyone can get a vehicle licence with no checks like the gun one. So why not make getting a drivers licence as hard as a gun one?
ACT was voted AGAINST by the vast majority of those who voted ... their gun business owning/gun lobbyist Minister should NOT be in a position to IMPOSE changes via sneaky Order in Council rather than through Parliament, & roll back legislation that will probably benefit them financially, exclude valid interest groups from discussions, & use the desperation of Luxon et al to have power in excess of their public support on the issue - the changes after the Mosque massacre were broadly supported by MOST NZers regardless of politics (apart from McKee & her minority "mates") She has NO MANDATE of any description to put more NZers (Police included) in future danger by rolling back sensible gun regulations.
I didn't vote for the GREENS when they were a coalition partner with Labour, but did admire their recognition that they were a MINORITY partner, and while fiercely advocating at times, didn't use their power to blackmail the govt into allowing them to do stuff AGAINST the public interest.
How did ACT blackmail National on this issue?
By demanding certain portfolios/ministerial positions/pieces of legislation BEFORE they would support National taking power (same with NZ1st) - it is written down in their coalition agreement in black and white.
That's an interesting definition.
Really? Luxcon is such a strong leader he wouldn’t let ACT get away with anything. 😂😂😂😂
I am a licensed firearms owner. My license expired after 10 years, and when I returned from oversees I had to go through the entire process again to renew it. Part of the vetting and re-vetting process was rigorous. It felt emotionally invasive and uncomfortable, however I believe it is entirely necessary. The part of the process I am referring to is the interview conducted in your own home by a Firearms Regulation Authority officer. I was asked very personal questions about my habits, the nature of my romantic relationship and state of mental health over an extended period of time. As uncomfortable as it is, this is a valid part of the process and quite obviously extremely important. I also was required to provide two references. One from a family member who had known me all my life, and the other a licensed firearms owner of good standing who had known me for over 10 years. Both my referees were also interrogated in great detail about my character and mental health. The point I am getting to here... is that what happened in Christchurch has nothing to do with licensed firearms owners in New Zealand and everything to do with incompetence and negligence in the vetting process of Brendon Tarrant. He slipped through the crack. The particular safety officer involved in his vetting process was that 'crack'. If Brenton Tarrant had been subjected to the same intensive assessment process I and other license holders I know have been, he would not have been issued a license. The major problem with guns in New Zealand is of an illegal nature, and in my opinion Mr Cahill should be spending more time working out how to get them out of the hands of unlicensed criminals than writing letters to Mr Luxon complaining about the extensive industry experience and alleged "secret campaigning" of Nicole McKee. Instead, someone could shine a light on the terrible 'secret' incompetency that occurred in the particular vetting process that led to the tragedy which occurred in Christchurch. I believe Minister McKee is simply trying to protect the right of licensed firearms owners to not be viewed or regarded publicly as criminals. With all this deflecting of responsibility it appears to be the license holders who cop-the-flack of negative public opinion for what was indeed the 'devastating oversight' of one particular individual within the safety authority.
Well, good that the vetting process is stringent INITIALLY, and with all due respect, the gun the perpetrator used is what made the shooting so deadly. It is a multi-faceted issue on this occasion. But mental health & family dynamics isn't a static thing - I know personally (& through many unfortunate widely publicised hostage & shootings) that a "responsible" gun owner one day might be a danger to others down the track. Limiting what types of guns are legal does at least 4 things
1) "responsible law-abiding gun owners" won't buy them, sell them, import them, own them so they can't be stolen by "criminals"
2) "responsible" gun owners seeing illegal guns will report them (surely?) and less will be in circulation
3) Police know IMMEDIATELY if such a gun is illegal without needing to check any data base etc. - in dangerous situations this can be the difference between life & death i.e. YES - we are dealing with a criminal element & NOT a "responsible" gun owner who will co-operate with them.
4) The AMOUNT of damage one gun and one perpetrator can cause to human life is exponentially less, despite their mental or legal status.
Finally, the USA has proven statistically the difference the TYPE of gun can make to the damage a criminal or mentally unwell person can do. Also, Mr Cahill is the union rep - he is advocating for the safety of his members & is not personally in a position to be removing guns from criminals???
Which of your 4 things would NOT be addressed by simply moving centrefire semi-autos (those with detachable magazines or even all of them) to E-category?
Let us acknowledge that there "is more than one way to skin a cat" ?
Undoubtedly, and hopefully some ways are better than others - but not sure how that is relevant to my question.
Where would E-category not meet your points?
Should a former environmentalist leader be Environment Minister?
Should a former teacher be Education Minister?
Should a former union leader be Minister for Workplace Relations?
Integrity questions shouldn't be just for causes we don't support.
No much better to have a former airline ceo run NZ into the ground just like the airline?
Think the point of being a minister is to consider all aspects and move in a direction of the greater good. Not to only discuss your own area of interest and do what you want.
Exclusion is not consideration.
ACT got funding from NRA and now its payback time on top of payment by this government to the tobacco industry etc. Democracy is the casualty.
You have actual evidence of the payment, or a confirming statement by either payer or payee?
Government doesn’t pay any attention to actual evidence??
Where is the proof ACT accepted donations from the NRA?
What i am happy with is that you have the most experienced person on guns involved to turn back the poor kneejerk reactionary policies put in place by the last bunch of no hopers that even made people hand in classic guns from the 1800's because they no longer complied. Utterly ridiculous to have to hand in small bore rifles because the law was so poorly written and executed...most likely because no one in labour would know which end the bullet comes out of.
Open your eyes?? Do a Google search. Why are they trying to reintroduce Automatic weapons in NZ??
You should google the difference between 'automatic' and 'semi-automatic'. Then google the definition of 're-introduce'.
All were used incorrectly in your sentence. This is where firearms are a technical subject, and understanding is important.
How much funding did ACT get from NRA? Heard that rumour but didnt know it was confirmed
Hmmm - let me see if I can help???
- Does the environmentalist OWN/have a financial interests in the climate he/she is advocating for? Were they leveraging their small electoral vote to exercise power over Luxon et al to get what MOST OF AOTEAROA doesn't support & DIDN'T VOTE FOR? Well, no!
- Does the teacher OWN/have a financial interest in the school buildings, the teachers, the students, the curriculum they are overseeing? Well, no!
- Does the former union leader OWN/have a financial interest in the employers, employees, & higher productivity of a harmonious working relationship between them? Well, no!
- Does the current person advocating for loosening gun ownership laws etc. HAVE A FINANCIAL INTEREST IN THE LEGISLATION & BEHIND THE SCENES RELAXATION OF RULES SHE IS RESPONSIBLE FOR OVERSEEING/IMPLEMENTING? Hell yeah!
There are more sources of conflict of interests than just financial ones.
There is seeking the acclamation of friends and followers, or the delivery of favorable policies for former employers and colleagues.
"Financial interest" is a specified & globally recognized "conflict of interest" that can be, and is, valid in a court of law. And in this case, "seeking the acclamation of friends and followers, or the delivery of favorable policies for former employers and colleagues" also blatantly applies to the person in question ...
those conflicts also apply to people you like and the causes you support.
We are HERE discussing a particular Minister & a particular situation. Happy to engage when the SUBJECT OF THE ARTICLE is on those?
But you don't want discussion about how the current ACT Minister and her former occupation isn't really that exceptional or different from other Ministers and their backgrounds?
Integrity questions should be asked when evidence of bias emerges none the less
'Evidence of bias' is very much in the eye of the beholder.
A couple of issues… there are a hell of a lot presumptions going on as act amendments aren’t even written yet. (Note above comment ”without reading it yet”. … 🤦🏼♂️
This displays the biases and ignorance on the matter perhaps from “96% of people who don’t have guns” and reinforces the requirement of a minister with actual knowledge on the subject to deliver Fair and Reasonable gun law.
Consultation!! You want it now? I distinctly recall the feeling of being utterly cut out of the consultation last time this was discussed.
Undemocratic!! No no, ACT and minister McKee were elected in an election last October.
As pointed out by Mr Cahill the Police are absolutely stake holders on the issue of “illegal firearms”. No question of that. One could argue that tweaks to legalisation covering Legal Firearms owned by the law abiding citizens effects them more on the admin side if at all
If reading over 13000 submissions (from memory) over one single weekend in 2019 is real consultation, then the current process is almost a bureaucratic quagmire! :)
Hopefully one thing that comes from this process at least is removing administration of firearms licencing and registration and so on from Police to a stand-alone entity, like NZTA for driver licencing and car registration. Leave Police to get on with Policing, have specialists in charge of a specialist area.
"And it’s illustrative of McKee’s orientation to the process that when the Association asked for copies of the consultation documents, her office told them that they would need to make a former Official Information Act request." This works as an illustration of her office's ignorance of the Official Information Act and what a request is under that Act. Or that there is a level of contempt for following the law?
This is something I once wrote regarding Casey Costello's passion for Philip Morris:
"A track record of deception is becoming evident in the Government’s Coalition alliance. Ministers across all parties have been found to either lie without contrition, and/or act unlawfully and unreasonably. The rails are coming off quicker than a marshmallow induced fantasy train ride as the conductors throw caution to the wind, in pursuit of their goals. But as the evidence piles up, and the Government continues to show scant regard for Kiwi lives, well-being, and our future, what consideration is due from us as voters, residents, citizens?"
That was:
1. Brooke Van Velden lying to the NZ public regarding the Environmental Commissioner's words,
2. Chris Bishop found to have acted unlawfully and unreasonably
3. Casey Costello found to have acted contrary to the law
i.e. There is a track record here unfortunately.
Without reading it yet - my answer is already "Hell, No!"
And I was stunned to see Luxon visibly defend McKee over our police during this week's press conference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TPcQ17LU7sE
Yes, Mr Luxon, despite your words, Ms Nicole McKee is a well known gun lobbyist: https://newsroom.co.nz/2020/10/13/nicole-mckee-firearms-freedom-and-family/
It's astonishing Mr Luxon allowed her to take over gun reforms in our country, and to completely ignore police feedback and input.
I am going to relish this article.
🙋🏾♀️I KNEW I had seen the receipts somewhere ... Luxon initially presented as possibly competent but just misguided by those with different political leanings, but has rapidly descended into definitely incompetent to lead a coalition govt where the minor parties are over-leveraging their electorate share to impose things very few voted for.
The Police were the incompetent ones who enabled the Christchurch shooter to get a gun license, when his license application was incomplete, and he never should have gained access to guns. Police are too incompetent to trust.
The problem Mark is that even if that were true, which I haven't examined, it doesn't mean that police input or ownership is now moot. i.e. It sounds more like a cover excuse for why police should be ignored - no they shouldn't.
They not only have practical experience on it and understand the risks, but they also have to police the laws and put their lives on the line for it so it seems bizarre that this gung-ho pro-gun lobbyist McKee wants to ice them out, and Luxon to suggest that they should join the queue to be heard along with the public.
Also, as I understand it, the core issue around gun management has been funding and prioritisation given scarce resources, so it's always important to look at the context of a topic. YMMV.
Finally, bizarre that Luxon, the apparently pro-law and order male, keeps saying he cares about crime on one hand, but on the other gave the portfolio to a very well known gun lobbyist - and keeps wanting to push police morale down the drown.
Utterly irresponsible in my view.
Since the changes to the Arms Act in 2019, what has happened to firearms crime? Given we care about crime.
Also, it's important to distinguish between the Police, as an organisation, and the Police Association as a lobby-group led by an "anti-gun lobbyist" (to use the inaccurate but preferred terminology). Police Association should have their say when it goes out for public consultation, Police must be involved from the very start.
I think shooting is an olympic sport, and we need gun enthusiasts like McKee involved to represent the gun owners, who had no involvement when Ardern banned all their guns. I think the law-abiding public gun owners deserve gun laws that are fit for purpose, and it was clear in this mornings interview that Jack Tame is not a gun owner. It will be hard to satisfy everyone, but people shouldnt be made to feel guilty for owning a gun.
No-one is being made to feel guilty about owning a gun and it's interesting to personalise safety and responsible gun reform in this way. YMMV.
It doesnt sound like you had any firearms confiscated when Ardern changed the regulations. I am guessing you are an anti-gun lobbyist who has never owned a gun. And what does YMMV mean ? I could try looking it up.
no......
It's obvious to me that if McKee became an MP because ACT wanted the gun-lobby onside, and the government is the government partly because ACT negotiated a review of fire-arms legislation as part of the coalition agreement, then McKee was always likely to get the role. Is that a disservice to the public - yes, if her behaviour is favouring her old lobby group , which looks to be the case. But Luxon won't move unless there's a big groundswell of public dissatisfaction, and probably not then either, as he's in hock ACT, and there's no election for another two years. Always look for the Realpolitik.
It’s just plain NO.. obvious conflict of interest.
A classic tail wagging situation in this coalition. That the govts agenda has basically been hijacked. Who is the senior coalition partner? ACT? If this is an example of how good Christopher Luxon's negotiation skills were, it's a clear F for Fail.
The Police were responsible for giving the foreign Christchurch shooter a gun license, when his application was incomplete, and he should never have got a gun license. They shouldnt be complaining because they caused the shooting tragedy. Our gun laws are being decided by Muslim immigrants, and foreign terrorists, and poor Police decision making. It is time the innocent gun owners got a say.
What we do need in the role as a starting point, whether red or blue, is someone who understands firearms as they are a technical and nuanced issue, as well as emotive.
Stuart Nash unfortunately was particularly unsuited - he talked about 'semiautomatic ammunition' in speeches for example. If you don’t understand that mistake, you aren’t really credible.
We had a readymade option in E-category to resolve this issue; unfortunately I think those involved in decision making at the time of the law changes simply didn't know what that was.
And 'Police' is not an infallible marker of credibility on this issue unfortunately - they gave us the nonsensical 'Military Style Semi-Automatic (MSSA)' term. One of the best things that will hopefully happen is the removal of The Firearms Authority from Police to be a stand-alone organisation, like NZTA.
(Also - in the interests of precision and accuracy, and not being misleading: MSSAs are NOT banned, they were just moved to a new licence category)
Nit-picking about terminology doesn't change the need for gun reform after the Mosque Massacre highlighted what the (then) current status was. The point was the EFFECT of rules & regulations, not understanding "firearms as they are a technical and nuanced issue" i.e. not what the gun is CALLED, but what the gun DOES. I have been reading an author whose main protaganist is a gun dealer & goes into excrutiating details on this subject, but I just need to understand "criminal with gun=bad" "some types of gun=bad/useless for hunting" "some types of gun=only needed if you want to kill MULTIPLE PEOPLE"
Ministers do NOT need total in depth knowledge of the subject as long as they take wide-ranging advice, take note of any research both for and against, have common sense, and are motivated by doing their best for ALL of the citizens, and not just vested interests - theirs or their mates/financial backers etc.
That 'terminology' was supposed to describe function - that was the mistake Police made. And what a gun *does* is the nuance. That is what the new rules missed unfortunately. Some semi-autos were not affected, some bolt actions were.
Given that, why would expanded E-category not have been a better solution?
And out of interest - which types of affected firearms are useless for hunting?
Still interested in your answers on E-category and affected 'useless for hunting' firearms. Focussing on function, not form
Are you reading novels for your information?
"shooting clubs and gun ranges, which until then were subject to virtually no rules."
You know that isn't correct Bryce, surely?
*All* the firearms and public safety legislation applied to shooting ranges, and always had. What the changes in 2019 added was almost entirely only administrative rules. For example, all committee members had to have a FAL even if they never ever fired or even touched a firearm.
The key issue that an anti-gun lobbyist (to use an odd term but it seems to be the chosen language) like Chris Cahill never addressed is - what was the problem with shooting ranges? What injuries/deaths/crimes actually happened prior to the rushed changes?
Short answer: certainly not.
Why all the fuss? The odd person is killed by guns each year but hundreds are killed by licensed vehicle drivers each year. Just about anyone can get a vehicle licence with no checks like the gun one. So why not make getting a drivers licence as hard as a gun one?
Matahui Mug