John Maxwell
Five years after New Zealand’s Christchurch mosque shootings, in which an Australian-born terrorist murdered 51 people, the country is revisiting firearms laws with the prospect that licensed shooters may again have access to military-style self-loading rifles. The Christchurch gunman used a legally acquired AR-pattern rifle in the attack and, much as happened in Australia after the 1996 Port Arthur tragedy, the-then NZ Labor government moved speedily to ban self-loaders, introduce registration and generally tighten the country’s previously liberal gun laws.
What’s changed now across the Tasman is the government. In the election last October, the two-term centre-left Labour Party was defeated in a landslide with the centre-right National Party, in coalition with the libertarian ACT Party, taking its place. The coalition deal meant the Nationals taking on some ACT policies, among them revisiting gun laws.
Leading that process is ACT MP Nicole McKee, the associate minister for justice (firearms) and former head of New Zealand’s equivalent to the SSAA, the Council of Licensed Firearms Owners (COLFO). One possible change could allow competition shooters access to self-loading rifles as they had previously, with Ms McKee saying the firearms laws review meant starting from scratch. “There’s nothing set in stone as we advance this process,” she told Radio New Zealand. “Ensuring licensed firearms owners are fit and proper through a graduated system of licensing, where people earn trust over time, and a licensing agency carrying out a range of checks is the sensible way of ensuring public safety.”
Following the 1996 Port Arthur massacre, the Australian government banned self-loading rifles and shotguns and pump-action shotguns but with a small number of exemptions, mostly for primary producers and professional pest control shooters. Similarly, New Zealand permitted various exemptions which meant a significant number of otherwise banned guns remained in the community.
“More than 5000 people, deemed to have a proper purpose, already have a licence for centrefire semi-automatic firearms. Under the rewrite of the Arms Act, a person would still need a legitimate reason to have a centre-fire semi-automatic firearm,” Ms McKee said. “Meanwhile, higher security and storage requirement would be needed and large-capacity magazines would continue to be unavailable to those without the proper, vetted endorsement.”
Before Christchurch the New Zealand shooting scene featured active military rifle competitions, in which shooters mainly used AR-pattern military-style semi-automatic (MSSA) rifles equipped with optical sights. These were heavily restricted and could only be acquired by shooters with a Category E licence endorsement (Cat E for short). The MSSA definition applied to any self-loading centrefire rifle with one or more features: A detachable magazine holding more than 10 rounds, pistol grip, flash hider and folding or telescopic stock.
However, any AR-15-pattern self-loading rifle and many others with 10-round magazine, thumbhole fixed stock and no flash hider or bayonet lug, fell into the least restricted Category A along with most everything else: Rimfires, bolt-action, lever-action and single-shot rifles, shotguns and air rifles. It appears the Christchurch gunman caused most or all of his carnage with a readily available legally acquired Cat A firearm, which only became illegal when he inserted a high-capacity magazine he bought online.
Furthermore, that shooter appeared to have secured a New Zealand firearms licence with minimal scrutiny. He arrived in the country in August 2017 and was issued a licence with Category A endorsement three months later. He went on to acquire six firearms: A pair of AR-pattern rifles, a pump-action and self-loading shotgun, lever-action rifle and bolt-action rifles along with more than 7000 rounds of ammunition.
Subject to meeting standard licensing criteria and depending on jurisdiction, a newcomer to Australia could conceivably secure a firearms licence in as little time as it took the NZ shooter, though he or she certainly couldn’t amass the same sort of arsenal. Under New Zealand’s buyback which ended in December 2019, some 60,000 guns were surrendered and destroyed, their owners compensated, although apparently not with particular generosity. No-one claimed this to be a rip-roaring success as no-one knew how many newly-banned guns there were to start with (some estimates put it as high as 200,000).
As in Australia there was certainly some level of non-compliance. And with the bans and buyback concentrating on military pattern rifles, some gun owners were apparently also unaware their pump and lever-action .22 rifles with mag capacity greater than 10 were also outlawed. The NZ government subsequently launched a second buyback of guns it hadn’t considered first time round, including centrefire pump-action rifles with detachable magazines and centrefire pump-action rifles with tube magazines able to hold more than 10 rounds.
The Kiwis also introduced new regulations for shooting clubs and ranges, requiring the former to be approved by police and the latter to be certified. The rollout of new registration and licensing systems appears to have proceeded fitfully, with long delays in issuing licences. As of January the new registry had recorded 100,000 guns, with compliance not actually compulsory until 2028.
Despite the bans and buyback, New Zealand’s gun crime rate has actually increased thanks to soaring gang violence, due at least in part to Australia deporting New Zealanders who’ve failed to meet good character visa requirements. To deal with the gang problem the country has adopted an Australian practice: Firearms prohibition orders (FPOs).
“The courts will be able to issue orders to any member or associate of a gang that’s been convicted of a significant offence,” Ms McKee said in a media statement. “Police will also be granted new powers to search offenders with an FPO, their vehicles and premises for firearms at any time. Keeping firearms out the hands of gang members and high-risk offenders is needed to ensure public safety.”
In proposed gun law reforms, the New Zealand Nationals/ACT Government has set itself four main tasks, starting with removing police from gun administration, policy and regulation and leaving them with enforcement. The Firearms Registry is under review, most club and range laws will be repealed with the Arms Act to be rewritten to make it ‘fit for purpose’.
Could Australia do what New Zealand is contemplating and again allow military self-loading rifles for competition use, even under tight restrictions? It seems unlikely. Changes introduced with the 1996 National Firearms Agreement are well entrenched and memories of Port Arthur remain strong enough to preclude any reversion, even under the tightest of conditions. None of the major political parties (Labor, Liberal, Nationals or Greens) is pushing for any such changes and no party so-minded is ever likely to form government or be in a position to compel any party in government to head down that road.