Last week, the Police Association refused to publish an article by COLFO which detailed objections to the fees and has since run in the “New Zealand Herald”. The article cites a January briefing to the Police Minister which warned that the high fees proposed for firearm license holders risks more firearms disappearing into the grey market.
COLFO spokesperson Hugh Devereux-Mack says the Association’s refusal to publish the article is a concerning sign about a mindset within Police to come down hard on firearm owners, whatever the consequences.
“NZPA President Chris Cahill has already made it very clear he supports the highest fees proposed for firearm owners, which constitute an almost 500 percent increase.”
“But what he hasn’t told his members is that a fee increase of that measure could have dangerous consequences for frontline police dealing with organised crime.”
NZPA president Chris Cahill
Police said in January briefings to then-Minister of Police Stuart Nash that the significant fees proposed increase the risk that some license holders will forego their license but retain their firearms.[1]
The briefing said around 40 percent of firearm license holders did not renew their licence when the ten-year license was introduced in 1992. Police say an unknown number of these license holders retained firearms.
“The briefing to the Minister warned the same could happen if license fees now rise by a significant amount,” says Devereux-Mack.
“It’s a serious risk because once in the grey market, firearms can more easily make their way into the hands of criminals, where they can be encountered by Police officers.”
COLFO wrote an article about the issue and offered it to the Police Association, so frontline Police officers could learn of the risks that come with the proposed regulations.
However, Police Association President Chris Cahill had already come out in support of the largest fee increase proposed by Police.
The Association refused to publish the article, preventing their members from learning of the potential consequences the fee increases might have on their workplace safety.
“The new Police Minister needs to find out what’s going on in the Police policy team that has led them to treat firearm owners with such disdain, and she needs to sort it out before people get hurt,” says Devereux-Mack.
/ENDS
[1] https://www.beehive.govt.nz/sites/default/files/2023-03/BIM%20-%20Minister%20of%20Police.pdf, page 29.
Note to the editor: Police still have not published an explanation for how the fees were derived, which they promised to do back in February.
For further information contact: Hugh Devereux-Mack. 027 362 0853
Hugh Devereaux-Mack
Sorry but I regard Chris Cahill as a poor “front man” for the Police.
Keep up the great work COLFO.
It is so senseless that the Police Minister, Police Association and for that matter, the Government, target law-respecting firearm public while they turn a blind eye to gangs and criminals.
If the police want more work increasing the cost of a firearms license will do that. Those nearing the end of their life when it comes to firearms will not renew their license and the guns will find there way into criminal hands.
Couldn’t agree more .. regrettably, the foolhardy actions of a reckless, police-advised government have already resulted in tens of thousands of firearms “going underground”.
This wasn’t because responsible people suddenly wanted to become criminals .. but because poor, rushed-through legislation resulted in a sense of unfairness, and unreasonableness .. which led to a sense of alienation, and “justified non-compliance”.
I only know this – because I was part of a group that took the time to go to every A&P Show in Canterbury, and actually talk to grass-roots, affected New Zealander’s, on their own turf (so to speak). These were legitimate, law-abiding, hard-working, salt-of-the-earth, people .. WHO HAD DONE NOTHING WRONG .. but were being made to feel like criminals. And nothing has changed.
Surely, our politicians and their police advisors must have a growing sense of having gone about this the wrong way?
Surely, they must be aware of the post-22 July 2011 Norwegian example (where they took a decade to get changes right, with pretty-much everybody on board, no further tragedies on a similar scale in the meantime, and a solid outcome)?
Surely, they must want to achieve an actual, real, positive outcome .. not just rush through a window-dressed, tick-a-box exercise that actually produces counter-productive results?
This does not seem to be the case.
Instead. they seem committed to ploughing on regardless .. putting heaps more good money after bad .. and driving the creation of a bloody disaster?
What’s it all about? Ego? The desire to exert power and control? Or, just a bunch a people living in their own, self-inflated “bubble of truth”, who simply cannot see the woods for the trees?
It is not just the increased fees that will augment the number of guns on the grey market. Registration will see the biggest rise in grey market guns imaginable. Law abiding licenced gun owners no longer trust the government or the police to treat them fairly after the debacle of the gun confiscation following the Christchurch terrorist attack. Law abiding shooters were made the scapegoat for government instigated police failures and we know now with 100% certainty that registration equals confiscation and we are not having it.
Where has all the common sense gone? It is inevitable that people will not pay a fee that is too high. Chris Cahill has shown how stupid he is and he is certainly not a leader we wish to have it is time he was replaced.
Make no mistake, the end game of a Marxist totalitarian state is to disarm the public! & they will do it one way or another. A simple pencil entry on the books before lunch, could raise lic. fees out of reach.Excluding most of us in one pencil stroke.
Often stated that no land-based invasion of the USA is possible by an offshore enemy, with several 100 million firearms in public possession.
Make no mistake, the end game of a Marxist totalitarian state is to disarm the public! & they will do it one way or another. A simple pencil entry on the books before lunch, could raise lic. fees out of reach.Excluding most of us in onepencil stroke.
Often stated that no land based invasion of the USA is possible by an offshore enemy, with several 100 million firearms in public possession.
Police slackness resulted in the Christchurch massacre. Or were they following instructions? If there had been a proper open enquiry we might know the answer to that question. If they acted under instruction who gave those instruction and with what motive? At the end of the day Ardern and the far left got what they wanted, more gun control. As everywhere the far left want guns in the hands of their thugs only. When an event occurs which results in much political mileage for some it might just be prudent to consider whether those who profited had some input into the initiating event. This case demonstrated exactly why firearms licencing should be taken out of the hands of the police. Police and firearms should not be in the same bed. When guns are needed we have an army. No policeman or woman should have access to any firearm unless and until he or she has passed a standard, non-police managed, firearm licence test.
Politics has always been about power and control but the totalitarian extremism coming from Politicians, NGO’s and their advisors in recent years is alarming. Trying to make criminals out of previously law abiding citizens is how fascists gain control. I’m saddened to witness this downhill slide of basic human rights which is happening in New Zealand. Police enforce laws, they should have no input into making them.
We need an independent firearms authority.
In a study conducted between 2017 and 2021, I found that the percentage of the population licensed for firearm ownership was generally higher where violent crime rates were low, and lower where violent offending rates were higher.
I also found that the more than 2,200 who responded to an on-line survey I held in the winter of 2019 were supportive of licensed firearm owners in that they approved of ‘vetting’, the training of intending licence holders, and were accepting generally of firearm users in their community.
Attempts to portray licenced firearm owners as ageing unemployed white malcontents were not supported by the survey findings either. Rather, licensed firearm owners were pro-social, employed, educated, gregarious and integrated members of New Zealand communities.
Gasp! You mean John Lott was right all along and “More Guns Equal Less Crime”? Stands back in amazement.
Perhaps, if we use the percentage of licensed firearm owners in the 12 Police Districts as a proxy for the number of firearms in each PD. Interestingly enough, the PD with the lowest percentage (Auckland City, with just 1.4% of its population licensed for firearm ownership) had quite high rates (per 10k residents) of firearm-armed violence. A corollary to be made from this might be that the offending involved those not licensed for firearm possession and use!
I should also note that the close interest displayed by the fourth estate in firearms is limited to bad news involving violence etc, never for a moment mentioning that this offending does not involve licensed owners. To illustrate, when I advertised (in the public notices) of the ODT recently, a meeting to present my findings, inviting four political parties and of course, members of firearm-related clubs to attend in Dunedin, 9 (nine) people attended, all being acquainted with me, either by virtue of their holding executive positions in shooting clubs or in one case, a former fellow PhD student. I think this illustrates the news media obsession with only bad news involving firearms.
Why does NZ always fight back in small groups that are ignored by authoritarians
It is time to stand and just say no as a nation. If we all said no to the rules as one what could they do
NZ needs to take example of other countries that stand up and fight until backdown by the worlds current crazy ideological politicians
Firearms do not get up, go out, commit crimes and harm people.
Some people (fortunately a minority) use firearms as well as axes, knives, sticks, stones, their hands or even motor cars to intentionally intimidate and harm other people.
Having a licensing system that assesses individual people’s propensity for violent behaviour and tries to prevent them from having offensive weapons to harm other people with is a good idea.
Responsible people of good character prefer to comply with laws, rules and regulations for their mutual benefit as long as the systems are fair and reasonable, affordable and relatively simple to understand.
We had such a firearms licensing system in New Zealand for many years and very few problems caused by licensed owners of firearms misusing them.
We became confident that the system would remain effective and complacent about it. This complacency led to reduced support for the system and changes intended to reduce costs.
The tragic consequence of this complcanecy and poor support and administration of our excellent system was the licensing arming and permission for a cruel and unusual INDIVIDUAL to legally arm himself and commit a terrible mass murder when he should never have been allowed a license or permission to purchase the guns and ammunition he used.
Tarrant is totally to blame for what he did and no-one else should be blamed because none of us would have imagined or believed that such a terrible crime could be committed in New Zealand.
But, it is human nature to blame others for what happens. Some people blamed only the killer. Others blamed white males in general. Racism was blamed. The police were blamed for not preventing the crime. Politicians and bureaucrats were blamed for meddling with the effective system.
Of course everyone who owns and uses firearms was also blamed and assumed to be somehow responsible for Tarrant’s heinous crime against humanity.
The tragdy had happenned and the criminal was in custody but people in the government decided to be seen to prevent a similar future incident (that was most unlikely to ever occur) by confiscating firearms from respo0nsible law abiding and licensed citizens WHO HAD NEVER DONE ANYTHING WRONG.
You really could not make up such nonesense as confiscating legally owned property from responsible law abiding people to address the criminal actions of a mas murderer after the crime had already been commited and then telling people that they were now safer because responsible people with no desire or motivation to harm anyone else had been deprived of some of their property.
Did criminals turn in their guns? Nope.
Did every now prohibited gun get surrendered to the police? You must be joking.
Definitely not and two thirds of the targeted semi automatic rifles are likely to still be in the possession of people who have been criminalized by the legislation. Two thirds is my guess but no-one really knows.
What will happen to these illegal firearms?
They definitely will not be handed in and will probably remain in in the possession of criminals.
Is that any reason for people to feel safer? I don’t see how.
Tarrant’s horrible crime changed everything for responsible owners and users of firearms because they were blamed for the injuries and deaths and targeted for discriminmation and the removal of their permission to responsibly own and use firearms without any evidence that they would every cause harm to anyone else.
The likelyhood of prohibitiuon and confiscation became the new reality we now have to deal with. The right to own firearms we used to have became a privilege that is about to be taken away.
The proposed new regulations doubled down on the unfair and unreasonable response to Tarrant’s brutal crime by requiring people to comply with an extremely complicated, difficult, unnecessary and expensive new system of licensing and registration of property without their consent or that of the majority of the people.
This new system is obviously intended to “encourage” responsible people to stop owning firearms because of the difficulty and expense of complying. That seems to be the desire of the people imposing these new regulations on us but THEY OUGHT TO BE CAREFUL WHAT THEY WISH FOR because things do not always turn out as expected.
When regulations that are perceived to be unfair and unreasonable are imposed upon people that have not and do not intend to do anything that harms others, the victims of these regulations become upset, distrustful and not inclined to willingly comply.
When people fear that their personal property is going to be confiscatred or stolen from them for no valid reason they are encouraged to hide it away.
When people are threatened and backed into a corner many will try to rebel and some might even lash out and become violent.
If people perceive compliance with the licensing system as detrimental rather than beneficial there is a risk that many might retain their firearms without being licensed to do so.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
We all want to be protected from harm and most of us have no desire or motivation to harm anyone else.
We are all willing to sacrifice some of our individual freedom for the mutual benefits of sensible rules and regulations.
Licensed owners of firearms are no different from everyone else in this regard and have been very willing to participate in and comply with the licensing system that used to be affordable, fair and reasonable because THEY SERIOUSLY CARE ABOUT THEIR SAFETY AND THAT OF OTHER PEOPLE.
These excessive and hugely expensive new regulations may be intended to prevent irresponsible people from having guns but are likely to result in more people illegally owning and using guns as well as a black market in which unlicensed people buy and sell guns.
The most likely outcome is that more criminals will have more guns.
People are uncertain about registering their firearms because they fear confiscation or
being robbed by criminals who gain access to the information in the register.
The trust and goodwill that used to exist between owners of firearms and the police had been eroded and almost completely destroyed.
The proposed new licensing fees are totally outrageuos and punitive.
Registration now is seen as confiscation later.
Gun clubs and shooting ranges are likely to become places to avoid rather than well managed and safe sporting venues.
Licensed owners of firearms are not objecting to these changes because they do not care about public safety. They are objecting because what is being done in the dictatorial and unfair way in which it is being done is likley to result in MORE THREATS TO OUR SAFETY as more and more firearms are secretly owned and used by unlicesed people and potentially violenty criminals.
People that do not own and use firearms should be more aware of the expense and dangers of what is being imposed on us by wellmeaning but foolish politicians and other government employees.
How many people are concerned about possibly being shot by a responsible licensed owner of firearms?
This would have to be well toward the bottom of the list of things that ordinary people are fearful of because it happens so rarely.
When then should we all have to pay hundereds of millions of dollars for a new difficult system that might result in more potential risks to public safety?