NZ bans semi-automatic and assault rifles after mass shooting

[webfact]

New Zealand bans types of semi-automatic weapons, high capacity magazines after mass shooting

By Tom Westbrook and Charlotte Greenfield

 

New Zealand's Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern attends a news conference after meeting with first responders who were at the scene of the Christchurch mosque shooting, in Christchurch, New Zealand March 20, 2019. REUTERS/Edgar Su

 

HRISTCHURCH (Reuters) - New Zealand will ban military style semi-automatic and assault rifles under tough new gun laws following the killing of 50 people in the country's worst mass shooting, Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern said on Thursday.

 

Ardern said she expects the new laws to be in place by April 11 and buy-back scheme will be established for banned weapons.

 

"Now, six days after this attack, we are announcing a ban on all military style semi-automatics (MSSA) and assault rifles in New Zealand," Ardern said.

 

“Related parts used to convert these guns into MSSAs are also being banned, along with all high-capacity magazines."

 

A lone gunman armed with semi-automatic rifles including an AR-15, last Friday killed 50 people in two mosque attacks in Christchurch.

 

Australia banned semi-automatic weapons and launched a gun buy-back after the Port Arthur massacre in 1996 in which 35 people were gunned down.

 

The AR-15 was used at Port Arthur and has been used in a number of high-profile U.S. mass shootings.

 

"On 15 March our history changed forever. Now, our laws will too. We are announcing action today on behalf of all New Zealanders to strengthen our gun laws and make our country a safer place," Ardern said.

 

“All semi-automatic weapons used during the terrorist attack on Friday 15 March will be banned."

 

Ardern said that similar to Australia, the new gun laws will allow for strictly enforced exemptions for farmers to conduct pest control and animal welfare.

 

"I strongly believe that the vast majority of legitimate gun owners in New Zealand will understand that these moves are in the national interest, and will take these changes in their stride."

 

Federated Farmers, which represent thousands of farmers, said it supported the change.

 

"This will not be popular among some of our members but after a week of intense debate and careful consideration by our elected representatives and staff, we believe this is the only practicable solution," Federated Farmers Rural Security spokesman Miles Anderson said in a statement.

 

New Zealand, a country of less than 5 million people, has an estimated 1.2 to 1.5 million firearms, around 13,500 of them MSSA type weapons.

 

The minimum legal age to own a gun in New Zealand is currently 16, or 18 for military-style semi-automatic weapons.

 

MOSQUES TO REOPEN FOR FRIDAY PRAYERS

The bullet-riddled Al Noor mosque in Christchurch was being repaired, painted and cleaned ahead of Friday prayers, as grieving families buried more victims.

 

Ardern has announced that Friday's call to prayers for Muslims will be broadcast nationally and there will be a two minute silence.

 

Armed police have been guarding mosques around New Zealand since the attacks. "We will have a heightened presence tomorrow in order to provide reassurance to people attending the Friday call for prayers," police said in a statement on Thursday.

 

"Police have been working relentlessly, doing everything in our power to gather all appropriate evidence from what are active crime scenes so we can allow people to return to the mosques as quickly as possible."

 

Both mosques attacked, the Al Noor and nearby Linwood mosque, plan to be reopened. Thousands of worshippers are expected at the Al Noor mosque, where the majority of victims died.

 

Most victims were migrants or refugees from countries such as Pakistan, India, Malaysia, Indonesia, Turkey, Somalia, Afghanistan and Bangladesh.

 

Australian Brenton Tarrant, 28, a suspected white supremacist who was living in Dunedin, on New Zealand's South Island, has been charged with murder following the attack.

 

He was remanded without a plea and is due back in court on April 5, when police said he was likely to face more charges.

 

The first victims were buried on Wednesday and burials continued on Thursday, with the funeral of a school boy.

 

Families of the victims have been frustrated by the delay as under Islam bodies are usually buried within 24 hours.

 

A mass burial is expected to be held on Friday. Body washing will go on through the day and night to have the dead ready for burial, said one person involved in the process.

 

Police have identified and release to the families the bodies of some 30 victims.

 

Twenty nine people wounded in the attacks remained in hospital, eight still in intensive care.

 

The gunman broadcast his attack live on Facebook and it was quickly distributed to other platforms, prompting Ardern and others to rebuke technology companies and call for greater efforts to stop violence and extremist views being aired on social media.

 

(Reporting by Tom Westbrook and Charlotte Greenfield in CHRISTCHURCH, Praveen Menon in WELLINGTON.; Editing by Michael Perry and Lincoln Feast)

         

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2019-03-21

[Chomper Higgot]

Well done.

[robblok]

Finally a country where reason rules, unlike other countries where they keep saying guns don't kill people. 

 

They are right but it gets a hell of a lot easier if you use a gun instead of a spoon. 

[Lacessit]

It will be interesting to see whether the buy-back scheme works better than it did in Australia.

[roo860]

It will be interesting to see whether the buy-back scheme works better than it did in Australia.

What happened there?

Sent from my SM-G920F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[Skallywag]

Well done

[Lacessit]

Just now, roo860 said:

What happened there?

Sent from my SM-G920F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app
 

A fair amount of fraud. Crooked gunsmiths were valuing $200 semi-automatic Ruger 0.22's at $1500. The money ( $300 million ) went quickly to first in, best dressed. So someone who was slow to hand in their weapons got less than market value.

[Gecko123]

This should have been done in America a long, long time ago. Hopefully this will motivate gun control advocates to demand changes there as well.

[thaibeachlovers]

14 minutes ago, Gecko123 said:

This should have been done in America a long, long time ago. Hopefully this will motivate gun control advocates to demand changes there as well.

NZ doesn't have a constitution giving the right to bear arms. If it had, this law would probably never be presented.

As in a lot of cases no one knows who has what weapons, it will be simple enough to hide the class being banned if the owner doesn't want to give them up. I doubt they'll be sending in the police to check every registered gun owner's property.

Of course, this law will only affect law abiding people. Criminals will have no problem obtaining such weapons if they don't already have them.

[ThaiBunny]

It is, of course, a misleading headline.  If you read the story, it's a proposal to ban these weapons; this announcement has no force of law and if the legislation passes the parliament it won't take effect for another 3+ weeks.  In the meantime NZ gun shops report a rush of customers

[Spidey]

7 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

NZ doesn't have a constitution giving the right to bear arms. If it had, this law would probably never be presented.

As in a lot of cases no one knows who has what weapons, it will be simple enough to hide the class being banned if the owner doesn't want to give them up. I doubt they'll be sending in the police to check every registered gun owner's property.

Of course, this law will only affect law abiding people. Criminals will have no problem obtaining such weapons if they don't already have them.

Not what happened in the UK. Very draconian penalties for gun possession. Get caught with a gun, 5 years. And yes, if you don't surrender your gun you will get a visit and a jail sentence. The majority of guns in the hands of criminals came via thefts/burglaries from law abiding citizens. Remove guns from society and you remove guns from criminals.

 

Gun crime has reduced dramatically. Mass shootings down to zero.

 

As for the constitution, constitutions can be changed.

[samran]

Couldn’t they have at least tried ‘thoughts and prayers’ first? 

[Scott]

Off-topic post removed.   The topic is about NZ and it's proposed law.   Comparisons to other countries that have gone through a ban or buy-back are acceptable.  

 

Please stay on topic.  

 

[Credo]

3 minutes ago, samran said:

Couldn’t they have at least tried ‘thoughts and prayers’ first? 

Perhaps they have.   Thoughts and prayers work well accompanied by a ban and a buy back program.   

[sonos99]

15 minutes ago, ThaiBunny said:

It is, of course, a misleading headline.  If you read the story, it's a proposal to ban these weapons; this announcement has no force of law and if the legislation passes the parliament it won't take effect for another 3+ weeks.  In the meantime NZ gun shops report a rush of customers

It is a proposal but all major political parties have given their support so it will pass. With such broad support even if NZ had a 2nd Amendment equivalent I suspected parliament would amend the Constitution to allow the ban. 

 

It addition the govt has already changed the gun regulations to restrict further the purchase of these weapons until the legislation is passed. 

[johnnybangkok]

33 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

NZ doesn't have a constitution giving the right to bear arms. If it had, this law would probably never be presented.

As in a lot of cases no one knows who has what weapons, it will be simple enough to hide the class being banned if the owner doesn't want to give them up. I doubt they'll be sending in the police to check every registered gun owner's property.

Of course, this law will only affect law abiding people. Criminals will have no problem obtaining such weapons if they don't already have them.

Yeah because the constitution can't ever be changed.

Apart from the 27 times it was changed.

[Psimbo]

NZ has NOT banned them- it is a proposal and the legislation is not yet in place. Even though it will likely be an overwhelming vote in favour of this it is not YET in law.

 

PERSONALLY I think it is a knee jerk reaction. I am not denying this was a significant and tragic event - statistically this was compared to a comparative death toll of over 3.5k based on population if it had happened in the US. No wonder it has been referred to as NZ's 9/11. The shooter was Australian and I don't see NZ invading the country as a result (some may see the last comment as flippant- it's not intended to be). There needs to be an inquest and an Inquiry , then a move forward- common sense would suggest a temporary ban on sales until decisions have been made.

 

I think the comparison  with the UK clearly indicates the draconian measures that persecute 'normal' gun owners'. The Brit Olympic shooting teams have to train outside the country as an example. Incidents since the bans now show a propensity for using knives as an alternative- to the point (pardon the pun) that some supermarkets are no longer selling single knives. How that alleviates the situation I am not sure- now a loon can buy a minimum of two knives!

 

There IS a place in society All over the world for weapons, just not in the hands of loons. This is being shown in the NZ examples for people such as farmers and others who do have a justification for possessing weapons. Just like a hammer or a car (both of which HAVE been used as weapons) they are an inanimate tool and perfectly safe in the right hands.

 

I see nothing wrong with shotguns and bolt-action rifles being licensed and used by the general public- others may differ. Hunters do pay a part in maintaining the environment despite what lentil eaters may think, and it is part of the culture. I see absolutely NO reason for ANY civilian to have, or try to justify the need for, a military style assault weapon.

 

I should note that I have never owned a weapon for personal use, nor did I ever contemplate the need to. I only used them and carried them for 25 years as part of my job- as I said above it's just a tool. People should be educated about weapons and how to handle them- not made to fear them.

 

My sympathies lie with the innocent victims of last week and hope New Zealand will come through this even stronger. It is a country I have always envied for its lifestyle and outlook on the world. Unconventional at times but that's what makes a country great.

 

[sungod]

54 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Of course, this law will only affect law abiding people. Criminals will have no problem obtaining such weapons if they don't already have them.

Its a tough one, I've used a gun as a tool of the job since I was a youngster, no longer need one but really do enjoy a good shoot when the opportunity arises-and semi autos are fun.

 

That said in this case it was a law abiding citizen who legally obtained these weapons, and then he went doo lally. Its true criminals have/can/will obtain weapons one way or the other but the difference is criminals see guns as 'tools of their job too,' I'm not sure of many criminals who cause a true active shooter incident.

 

As much as I like guns and would not want to infringe on normal sane people who enjoy a sport, preservation of live should take priority over someone else's hobby.

[samran]

15 minutes ago, Psimbo said:

NZ has NOT banned them- it is a proposal and the legislation is not yet in place. Even though it will likely be an overwhelming vote in favour of this it is not YET in law.

 

PERSONALLY I think it is a knee jerk reaction. I am not denying this was a significant and tragic event - statistically this was compared to a comparative death toll of over 3.5k based on population if it had happened in the US. No wonder it has been referred to as NZ's 9/11. The shooter was Australian and I don't see NZ invading the country as a result (some may see the last comment as flippant- it's not intended to be). There needs to be an inquest and an Inquiry , then a move forward- common sense would suggest a temporary ban on sales until decisions have been made.

 

I think the comparison  with the UK clearly indicates the draconian measures that persecute 'normal' gun owners'. The Brit Olympic shooting teams have to train outside the country as an example. Incidents since the bans now show a propensity for using knives as an alternative- to the point (pardon the pun) that some supermarkets are no longer selling single knives. How that alleviates the situation I am not sure- now a loon can buy a minimum of two knives!

 

There IS a place in society All over the world for weapons, just not in the hands of loons. This is being shown in the NZ examples for people such as farmers and others who do have a justification for possessing weapons. Just like a hammer or a car (both of which HAVE been used as weapons) they are an inanimate tool and perfectly safe in the right hands.

 

I see nothing wrong with shotguns and bolt-action rifles being licensed and used by the general public- others may differ. Hunters do pay a part in maintaining the environment despite what lentil eaters may think, and it is part of the culture. I see absolutely NO reason for ANY civilian to have, or try to justify the need for, a military style assault weapon.

 

I should note that I have never owned a weapon for personal use, nor did I ever contemplate the need to. I only used them and carried them for 25 years as part of my job- as I said above it's just a tool. People should be educated about weapons and how to handle them- not made to fear them.

 

My sympathies lie with the innocent victims of last week and hope New Zealand will come through this even stronger. It is a country I have always envied for its lifestyle and outlook on the world. Unconventional at times but that's what makes a country great.

 

I don't see a problem with most of what you said. They are a tool, and if you have a legitmate need for it (hunting, sport, farmer) then I don't think its an issue. To that extent, I suspect the law will reflect the Australian one, given that Australia and NZ have regular 'council of ministers' and try to harmonize their regulations wherever they can.

 

Where I don't disagree with you is this is a knee jerk reaction. There is lots of evidence that this is the right thing to do, and NZ has tried to pass these law three times in the past 20 years, but have been stymied by pro-gun opposition. You could argue that they are being opportunistic in passing them now, as the public will be 300% behind the changes, but I guess, that is politics.

[thaibeachlovers]

45 minutes ago, Spidey said:

Not what happened in the UK. Very draconian penalties for gun possession. Get caught with a gun, 5 years. And yes, if you don't surrender your gun you will get a visit and a jail sentence. The majority of guns in the hands of criminals came via thefts/burglaries from law abiding citizens. Remove guns from society and you remove guns from criminals.

 

Gun crime has reduced dramatically. Mass shootings down to zero.

 

As for the constitution, constitutions can be changed.

How would they know if you had a gun if you'd had it a long time? Owners are registered, not the weapon, or at least that was the case in the past.

Constitutions can only be changed if the vote is large enough. While gun owners are keeping quiet because too scared ( good reason to be so ) to speak up in the present climate, they would not vote to change a constitution if it existed, IMO.

[Date Masamune]

It would be nice to hold citizenship of a safe and sane Nation.

[thaibeachlovers]

33 minutes ago, johnnybangkok said:

Yeah because the constitution can't ever be changed.

Apart from the 27 times it was changed.

Deflect away then. The law could not be passed if there was a constitutional right to bear arms, UNLESS the constitution was changed first, and no guarantee it would be.

BTW, how many times did the US constitution relating to bearing arms get changed?

[thaibeachlovers]

1 minute ago, Date Masamune said:

It would be nice to hold citizenship of a safe and sane Nation.

It would indeed if such existed in the world. Unfortunately it doesn't. Apparently NZ has a very high rate of domestic abuse and murder for the population number, and they didn't use an assault weapon for any of them, far as I'm aware.

http://www.areyouok.org.nz/family-violence/statistics/

 

Also too much physical assault to be safe out there.

 

[sonos99]

2 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

How would they know if you had a gun if you'd had it a long time? Owners are registered, not the weapon, or at least that was the case in the past.

Constitutions can only be changed if the vote is large enough. While gun owners are keeping quiet because too scared ( good reason to be so ) to speak up in the present climate, they would not vote to change a constitution if it existed, IMO.

What would be the point in keeping an illegal weapon if you couldn't use it. Why would a gun owner risk losing his gun license, confiscation of his other weapons and other penalties maybe even jail time. 

 

I believe that registration will be required going forward so when you renew your license you will be required to register all existing weapons. 

 

I could be wrong but I think It is only semi automatic centre fire rifles that are being banned and gun parts such as bump stocks and large capacity magazines. . I don't think they are banning semi auto. 22 s. I'm not sure about semi auto shotguns. 

 

I don't believe most NZers are against guns so no need for gun owners to keep a low profile. They are however against semi auto or auto weapons with large capacity mags. 

[Longcut]

1 hour ago, Gecko123 said:

This should have been done in America a long, long time ago. Hopefully this will motivate gun control advocates to demand changes there as well.

In America, it is a constitutional right to own guns. Can't just pass a law to ban them just because you want to.

[ShortTimed]

Knee jerk reactions seldom result in well thought out legislation that remains upheld in the Court.

But what the Kiwis do is their business and not mine.
Same goes for the Americans and their gun laws.

I know quite a few Canadians who own long guns and they aren’t committing mass murder. To me I think its the symptom of other social ills.

Do countries really think they can allow unlimited immigration of very culturally dissimilar populations and have them compete for the same jobs, homes and resources AND NOT HAVE UNREST amongst the predominant populations? Especially when the new immigrants continue with their own Customs (Religious or otherwise)?

Mass immigration lessens the chances these new populations will feel pressure to assimilate since they will find comfort and strength in numbers of their own. Are these new groups marrying outside of their culture? Are they making attempts to adapt?

Interesting to see how that will play out over the years as these resources become more scarce.






Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect

[ShortTimed]

Whats the old saying?

The definition of a successful politician is the one who best exploits a crisis?


Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect

[metisdead]

A troll post has been removed. 

[xylophone]

1 hour ago, Psimbo said:

I see absolutely NO reason for ANY civilian to have, or try to justify the need for, a military style assault weapon.

And for me that is a key point and I am so pleased that the New Zealand government has acted swiftly to try and pass a law forbidding these automatic/semiautomatic weapons which were designed as a tool for war.

 

Another poster said that this couldn't happen in America because the constitution defends an American's right to bear arms (or something similar) and that may well be the case, but they could still bear arms, only not those designed for war purposes, however the gun lobby is far too powerful and has too many politicians in its pocket, so it's likely that things will never change.

 

So much for a mixture of democracy, money and corruption.

 

And for what it's worth, I think the New Zealand Prime Minister has handled the situation superbly and although I wasn't a fan of hers before, listening to her last night in an interview on the BBC, I was most taken with her manner and intelligence, so I'm now a great fan.

[ShortTimed]

And for me that is a key point and I am so pleased that the New Zealand government has acted swiftly to try and pass a law forbidding these automatic/semiautomatic weapons which were designed as a tool for war.

 

Another poster said that this couldn't happen in America because the constitution defends an American's right to bear arms (or something similar) and that may well be the case, but they could still bear arms, only not those designed for war purposes, however...

 

An apology if I have this wrong but my understanding of the US Constitution and Bill of Rights is that the particular wording specifically states a “well armed militia” or to that effect so weapons of war is very much what was intended.

 

A historian would need to step in here to explain the type of firearms available at that time however, I think the accepted practice was to opt for the ones with the greatest and latest technological advances. After all, the entire goal of combat is to shoot the other guy before he shoots you.

 

A young North America had just escaped the control of the British Gov’t whose soldiers had proven they would kill these Americans when given the order. There was a great mistrust of political leadership for obvious reasons. It does little good to bring a knife to a gunfight so they say.

 

Do I personally care for an assault type weapon? No.

 

Do I respect the Rights of other Countries? Every bit as much as I hope they respect mine.

 

NZ is a small country and a unified country with a shared cultural identity so getting consensus is much easier than in a large fractured population such as the US.