From a statement from Brad Gallop, Chairperson, Council of Licensed Firearm Owners and newspaper reports. 25 June 2024
Brad Gallop, Chairperson, Council of Licensed Firearm Owners, has praised the coalition government’s current reform proposals of firearm laws in response to comments made the day before by the Police Association and anti-firearm groups.
However the coalition government’s latest move to overhaul gun laws has been attacked as “non-democratic” and ”suspicious“.
The Police Association, the Federation of Islamic Associations of New Zealand and Gun Control New Zealand have all expressed alarm at the Government’s process to change part 6 of the Arms Act, which requires regulation and oversight of shooting clubs and ranges.
The law was passed four years ago following the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Christchurch Mosque Attacks, after it was revealed the terrorist who killed 51 worshippers in the 2019 incident had practised shooting at a rifle club in South Otago.
The Police Association said it had not been invited to make a submission on the recent consultation document, despite being heavily involved in gun law changes following the deadly mosque attacks.
Consultation Suspicious?
“We have been right at the forefront of advocating for change in firearms laws and to not be included raises some real suspicions that this is actually an open consultation,” Police Association President Chris Cahill was reported as saying
Chris Cahill, Police Association – not happy
photo Otago Daily Times
However Brad Gallop said Nicole McKee’s Minister’s Arms Advisory Group (MAAG) assisted the Government on a draft of the soon-to-be formally released discussion document regarding law changes to improve the regulation of firearm clubs and ranges.
Clubs and Ranges specialists and the Firearms Safety Authority were asked to undertake an initial check that the Ministry of Justice document was technically accurate he said.
“COLFO compliments the Ministry of Justice and the Government for using MAAG, a formal Ministerial Advisory Group, to provide advice on draft documents prior to release. This is exactly what the advisory group was designed to do. COLFO is very disappointed that some groups, including the Police Union, are trying to circumvent a well-established advisory group function and are complaining about the Government following proper Parliamentary process.”
No Surprise
“COLFO is not surprised by the comments of Chris Cahill, spokesperson for the Police Union, who is never shy to misinterpret and scaremonger without first finding out the facts.
Chris Cahill and the Police Union are not connected to firearm clubs and ranges, nor is the Union part of a formal Ministerial Advisory Group. They will be able to submit on the changes when the Discussion Document is formally released for public consultation as per the usual parliamentary process, said Brad Gallop.
Minister for Courts and the Associate Minister of Justice (Firearms).
Isn’t it “funny weird” that Police Association Chris Cahill complains about a lack of consultation? Yet when the Labour government rammed through firearm laws following the mosque tragedy, in just 2 days claiming 12,000 submissions had been read (in 48 hours???), Mr. Cahill was silent.
No one – among them Police Association “head honcho” Chris Cahill, has explained how the Australian would-be terrorist Tarrant was granted – by police – a firearm licence (which allowed him to buy and amass firearms and ammo) despite glaring omissions such as no credible referees, applying in Hamilton rather than home of Dunedin, that Tarrant was on Australian authorities “watch list” and so on.
So were police just dumb and ignoranbt and in competent.
Cahill should front up and explain, because it reflecxs badly on those fine police staff who are competent and alert.
Great effort by Nicole & her team Well done to all.
BUT I have heard on the grapevine that the leader of the National party, one
“Blackrock” Luxon has said that he will support the proposed changes to our firearm laws
as far as the First Reading in parliament. IF true?? what does that imply???
Is he under UN,WEF, Blackrock orders to only allow it to go THAT far to make all Nicole’s & Act’s & NZF’s supporters ” feel better”.
Mr.Luxon should remeber that trust is a two way street & also recall that the Nats
went thru a few different leaders in a very short space of time before he was elevated to the dizzy heights Leadership in the National party appears to be a bit hard to hang onto for some reason????
No matter what, if any new firearms legislation is brought in will it stop the continued use by unlicensed firearms owners for illegal purposes. We wouldn’t be having this discussion now if Tarrant had been stopped at the border when there was an Australian police “watch” notice on him.
The Police Assn is no more than a mouthpeice for the Labour Party and through the Assn’s continuous politicking have changed gun policing to a panic type of approach. Even mention of a firearm triggers the armed defenders squad turnout. When I gave a submission to the select committee Greg O’Connor the past president was on the select committee for the labour government and the moment a submitter tried to submit a document from the police showing when the supply of the ammo for the shooter was questioned they were told to supply it…Greg O’connor tried to shut the submitter down and demanded the cameras be switched off.. My submission and that one were never put up. It was blatant censorship. If the gun register comes in the police will check it before going to someones house and before you know it an armed response will be required to serve a summons.
Me thinks Cahill doth protest too much! Is his indignation simply a smoke screen to cover the Police’s inept firearms licence vetting of the Aussie Terrorist? And why punish law abiding gun clubs with onerous over-regulation, just because a licenced firearms owner (the Aussie Terrorist) practiced there? More political theatre/dissembling me thinks!
My view:
As long ago as 1990, when the police visited the perpetrator of the Aramoana massacre, they were surprisingly accepting of his bizarre (aberrant?) behaviours and failed to pull his firearm licence for demonstrably anti-social tendencies then.
So 2019 was their second massive failure. Some of the measures enacted since then seem vindictive, ineffective and time-wasting, without gains in public safety. (They also generate a significant number of jobs for desk-bound bureaucrats.)
The over-the-top measures enacted since then merely reflect an over-reaction and this review is an effort to address that imbalance.
Wouldn’t it be grand if there were no guns, weapons, disagreements, conflicts, violence or wars?
Yes, that would be grand and something for people to “aspire” to but, for now, we have to accept reality even without liking it.
There are violent people like Tarrant who have no respect for regard for human life but they are fortunately quite rare.
More dangerous and deadly are the political “authorities” that have been causing, are still causing and will keep on causing wars that kill millions of innocent human beings.
I can understand how our police would like to disarm the LAW ABIDING public.
They certainly do not protect us or our property from harm.
Their revenue gathering culture has damaged our respect and faith in the police.
They seem rather paranoid compared to police of the past that we regarded as OUR FRIENDS.
I still regard most of the police men and women as decent people but unfortunately not FRIENDS.
Cahill and other “top cops” do not regard us as friends either and perhaps PARANOIA encourages them to confiscate our firearms.
Perhaps these anti-gun people would prefer everyone to have the same risk as those poor victims of Tarrant’s heinous crime. Murdered in cold blood while being helpless and deprived of any chance of protecting themselves? Thanks for caring. NOT.
Who will comply with Labour’s discriminatory, thoughtless, expensive and draconian “hate” legislation?
Responsible, law abiding citizens, that also have to be investigated, interrogated, referenced and vetted to prove their innocence IN THE ABSCENSE OF ANY EVIDENCE that they had any inclination or intention to harm themselves of anyone else.
The same compliant people that allowed their personal property to be confiscated for no sensible reason will comply with the register and Labour’s “hate” legislation.
Guess who will not comply.
Criminals and also some decent people that refuse to have their natural rights violated will not comply or maybe partly comply.
No-one knows how many firearms are illegally owned in New Zealand.
No-one wants to admit that many times more will probably be illegally owned after 2028 if this discriminatory legislation is not repealed and replaced.
What about the safety of our police men and women when they will have no idea of who has or does not have illegal guns?
It would be better for them if more people were willingly compliant with regulations that are FAIR AND REASONABLE and regarded the police as friends again.
That seems too difficult for our police officials to understand.
These anti-firearms people who think punishing innocent people will make them safer are seriously deluded.
Dream ON!
Like Jack Tuhawaiki, I’m still waiting for the Police Assn., to explain howe Brenton Tarrant got a firearm licence from the police. I also understand that Tarrant once he had his licence then bought an extraordinary amount of ammunition from a shop. The shop owner notified police but nothing was done.
It is a pity the main stream media have no gone digging to unearth these failings of the police. Arguably had Tarrant NOT been granted a licence, the mosque tragedy may never had happened.
The Main Stream Media portrays the gun violence situation in America as being pretty bad. Sunny New Zealand appears to be at the other end of the spectrum of gun violence.
The tragic Christchurch shooting event was certainly NOT normal for NZ, and there are some inconsistencies in the event and it’s lead-up that need to be considered and addressed in a less knee-jerky way.
I like to think that there’s a gun ownership middle ground somewhere in there between the two extremes of America and New Zealand.
Gun laws don’t stop criminals from acquiring, owning, or using guns – they only stop responsible gun owners from getting, having, and using them responsibly.
Going back to the USA for a moment, a breakdown of gun deaths in the USA shows that only about 1% of gun deaths are from “mass shooting” events; the vast majority are from suicides; and the majority of actual shootings take place in areas where guns are banned or ownership is greatly restricted.
I agree that there needs to be a screening process to ensure that people who are able to buy and use guns are mentally stable and unlikely to commit crimes with them. But I also think that the suitability thresholds in NZ are too high, and the sensitivity to minor or petty infractions are too high too. Minor things like speeding tickets, dog registrations, and moderately central-to-right leaning political views (etc) shouldn’t affect your worthiness to hold a firearms licence. Remember, more people have been killed by lefties than righties – and no, National Socialists are NOT right leaning!
Perhaps a more moderate standard could be introduced, something along the lines of “if you’re mentally stable enough to join the military you would qualify for a firearms licence”?
There is a certain pleasure, satisfaction and pride in shooting straight at the range, or in bringing home the bacon from a walk in the woods – it’s a real shame to have that restricted so broadly.
As places like London (the knife crime capitol of the world) show, the tool is not the problem. And as crime stats in NZ show, Kiwis are by nature a pretty decent, law-abiding bunch.
The current (and future) geo-political situation needs to be considered, too, when deciding on firearms laws. With the way things are going right now, the MSSA restrictions may prove to be problematic in the near future.
How about our government and other regulatory bodies assume people are innocent until there is OBJECTIVE grounds to find them otherwise?
Perhaps more energy should be put into restricting the access of people with demonstrably anti-social intentions to firearms, than in restricting the access of people with no intentions to harm?
I forgot to mention, too, that a gun registry is a destination shopping list for criminals.
And if police aren’t able to keep these lists secure in hard copy form inside a police station (and in the past they haven’t been), then how can the registry possibly be kept secure on a web-connected digital database?
C’mon guys, stop setting yourselves up to fail!