NZ: Land of the AR15

Brenton Tarrant is accused of mercilessly shooting and killing 50 innocent New Zealanders. But until the moment he opened fire with a semiautomatic weapon, he had seemingly broken no gun laws. What are the loopholes politicians could look to close? Stacey

Wearing an expression that dared anyone to oppose her, Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern promised: ‘‘Our gun laws will change.’’

It’s understood the issue will be top of the agenda at Cabinet today, but, following years of failed attempts at reform – across multiple governments – while there may be a political will, it’s never been that simple.

Already, factions on different sides of the debate are arming themselves and the war for legitimacy has begun.

While New Zealand’s gun lobby does not hold the toxic level of power that is synonymous with inaction in countries like the United States, there are about 250,000 firearm licences held in New Zealand – a predominantly male group of active voters aged 40-70.

Both National and NZ First have been courting associations within this group in recent years, but they are not the only parties that can be accused of bowing to pressure on issues of gun control.

Both Labour and the Greens have backed away from a raft of recommended law changes at various points in an extensive timeline – spooked by the backlash of an intense network of political pressure groups.

But the battle for the definition of a ‘‘responsible gun owner’’ could be about to reach a fever pitch as calls to ban military-style semi-automatic weapons and establish a gun register gain traction in the wake of what happened in Christchurch on Friday.

Gunning for loopholes in firearm laws

Brenton Tarrant, the Australian charged with murder over the deaths of 50 worshippers at mosques in that city, had obtained a gun licence in New Zealand.

He had at least five weapons, including two semi-automatic guns, which he obtained legally under that standard A-category licence.

However, firearms held under an A-category licence can be easily converted to what’s called a military-style semi-automatic weapon, using unregulated parts.

That suggests there are loopholes in the categorisation of what could reasonably be considered a standard semiautomatic weapon versus ‘‘military-style’’ firearms, which require a category-E licence.

Semi-automatic rimfire .22 ‘‘rabbit’’ rifles are a staple in many New Zealand gun cabinets, for example. But they are arguably a far cry from an AR15, which falls in the same category if loaded only with a 7-shell capacity magazine.

Load it with an easy-to-obtain 30-shell capacity magazine, and it’s a different category of weapon – a military-style semiautomatic firearm.

It raises questions over who in New Zealand – aside from the military or police – would need access to such a weapon.

Calls for a compulsory register have so far been met with great opposition from the firearm community.

Some argue that such a register would do little to monitor the weapons that criminals hold illegally.

Others claim it to be a security risk – if the register fell into the wrong hands, gangs could target gun owners to steal for their own caches.

Police Association president Chris Cahill points out neither argument holds water, as the Government holds far more sensitive databases than that.

A recently established sex offender register is one such database which in the wrong hands could put a great many people in threat of physical danger. So far, that has not happened.

Inevitably, there will be questions over how Brenton Tarrant was granted a gun licence. But obtaining a first licence in New Zealand does require the clearance of a number of hoops.

These include participation in a theory and practical handling course, the sitting of a test, a series of referee interviews, personal interviews with police, as well as a physical inspection of the prospective gun owner’s home to assess the storage of any firearm.

The licensing period is inordinately long compared with other similar countries – 10 years as against five years in Australia, Canada and the United States.

And while lobbyists advise against ‘‘kneejerk reactions’’ and incremental change, those who want to see meaningful reform argue that swift change – before months of consultation water down both the law and the immediate will to do it – is exactly what the gun lobby is aiming for.

Calls for and against change

Cahill says semi-automatic weapons of the calibre that are easily modified need to be banned and a register is needed for all guns in New Zealand.

‘‘If someone was building up a cache of weapons and there were some alarms around that, it would be something that could be followed up.

‘‘But as it stands now, we have no idea who’s buying weapons and where they’re keeping them or how many they have in New Zealand.’’

It was something any responsible gun-owner should agree with.

Council of Licenced Firearms Owners secretary Nicole McKee agrees changes are needed to address access to military-style weapons, through simple modification. But she disagrees with an outright ban.

‘‘The way that it stands now, someone with a standard firearm licence should not be able to change their firearm into an E-category illegally.

‘‘We need to look at how that has occurred and what we can do to stop that,’’ she says.

But she calls first for a ‘‘thorough investigation’’ into what went wrong, including into intelligence agencies.

‘‘We just need an investigation into what needs to change and work with our officials to ensure the changes is an affective change and not kneejerk legislation.’’

She does not believe militarystyle weapons should be banned, ‘‘but maybe we need to look at who has access to those [weapons]’’.

‘‘We’ve already done that, after we had Aramoana, after we had Raurimu – there were legislative changes to look at who could have access to those.’’

McKee concedes changes are necessary but questions whether it is legislative changes that are needed or ‘‘administrative’’.

‘‘We actually need to find where those holes are first. It’s easy for me to say the act is fit for purpose, but this guy got a firearm and he got guns, and he committed this horrible attack on Kiwis. ‘‘So something’s gone wrong.’’ Otago University Department of Public Health experts Dr Marie Russell and Dr Hera Cook say that is not enough.

Both have jointly called for an immediate moratorium on sales, imports and advertising of semiautomatics while changes are decided.

Ardern did not go there last night, but a wide range of restrictions are likely to be on the Cabinet table for discussion today.

One of Australasia’s leading experts in gun control policy says it comes as no surprise that Tarrant was a licensed gun owner.

Sydney University adjunct professor Philip Alpers says in 17 mass shootings in Australia and New Zealand, from 1987 to 2018, 142 people died.

‘‘Most of the victims – 60 per cent – were shot by previously law-abiding, licensed gun owners using legally held firearms. The Christchurch shooting will raise this ratio considerably.

‘‘If the Christchurch killer had stayed in his native Australia, he could not have legally obtained his semiautomatic rifles.

‘‘His crime was made possible by gaps in New Zealand gun laws.’’

The fact the perpetrator seemingly had at least one AR15 semi-automatic rifle, which police say had been modified – probably merely by the insertion of a high-capacity ammunition magazine of more than 7 rounds capacity – was cause for concern.

Alpers says there are legitimate reasons to have guns in New Zealand, but absolutely no case for a responsible gun owner to want to keep their weapon away from the eyes of authorities.

‘‘New Zealand has a huge number of pests, which need to be shot – many of which came from Australia. It has a vibrant and usually very responsible sports shooting community and the hunting community is very, very big.’’

Alpers, who is a New Zealander, says New Zealand has always prided itself on having a ‘‘responsible approach’’ to guns; they’re tools of the farm, they’re kept away from children, and New Zealand is ‘‘horrified’’ at what gun laws have allowed in the United States.

‘‘We regard ourselves, somewhat smugly, as having a culture that does not allow things like that to happen.’’

But it cannot be escaped that Tarrant operated under current New Zealand law, which did allow for a tragedy on a massive scale by global standards.

The argument that guns should not be recorded on a national register was ‘‘absolutely ridiculous’’.

Alpers estimated that of the 94 per cent of long guns – shotguns and rifles – that were not registered, about half of them were probably semi-automatic and police had no idea who owned them, or where they were.

Arguments against registering them were akin to owning a car and saying because a driver held a licence, they did not need to register the vehicle.

Reaching across the aisle

A war for the influence of politicians over a certain amount of change could be futile in some respect, however, as political consensus on a couple of flaws in the firearm legislation may not be difficult to achieve.

No party will want to be seen to be hand-wringing in the wake of a national tragedy.

National Party leader Simon Bridges has confirmed he stands with Ardern, that ‘‘there will be change’’.

‘‘I’m not clear what the Government’s proposing. We will genuinely look at everything, but we need to know what’s proposed, and I think we need to talk with them [the Government] when they know where they want to go,’’ Bridges says.

He agrees there is probably little case for anyone to own a high-powered military-style semi-automatic rifle or to keep that ownership a secret from authorities.

NZ First leader Winston Peters did not respond to a request for comment, but, along with National, NZ First has in recent years courted the vote of the hunting lobby. There is consensus for change now – 50 people have been killed by guns that were legally obtained. Those reluctant to clamp down on the freedom of the ‘‘responsible gun owner’’, can now see the glaring gaps in the law.

But that has not always been the case.

The path to reform has been slow and, in many cases, littered with dead ends.

Recommendations on firearm control by Justice Thorp in 1997 were never passed into law. As well as a recommendation that all firearms be individually registered to their owners, in addition to owner licensing, Thorpe also called for restricted weapons to be permanently disabled, a three-year licensing period instead of the current 10 years, and tighter vetting and licensing provisions, with more stringent rules for secure storage.

An Arms Amendment Bill, introduced in 2005, languished until it was dismissed in 2012. Every year since 2010, government proposals for changes to legislation have been drawn up, and then quietly dropped.

In 2017, a year-long parliamentary select committee into the possession of illegal firearms offered up 20 recommendations. Two-thirds were rejected by then-police minister Paula Bennett.

Cahill points out that backdown was not just hers to bear.

NZ First also rejected the select committee inquiry findings, and Labour’s police spokesman at the time – now the police minister – Stuart Nash downplayed recommendations for a gun register, saying ‘‘the real problem is people stealing firearms from licensed dealers’’.

National, sensing an opportunity last year, has organised roadshows aimed at gun owners and NZ First has long been a friend to hunting groups.

In 79 countries surveyed by the United Nations, firearm registration is the accepted norm and a cornerstone of gun control. Among developed nations, New Zealand’s decision not to register 96 per cent of civilian firearms makes it a stand-out exception, along with the United States and Canada.

Police have no authority to monitor the size and content of most private gun collections, and so cannot detect or prevent the buildup of private arsenals. Officers responding to callouts have no idea what guns they might encounter, or how many they must find and remove to make families safe in cases of domestic violence.

New Zealand Police report that most firearms used in crime came from the collection of a licensed gun owner, either by sale, theft or neglect.

To the question of who, among the public, needs a military-style semi-automatic weapon anyway, politicians from both sides of the aisle may have reached enough of a consensus.

Absolutely no-one.

Every year since 2010, government proposals for changes to legislation have been drawn up, and then quietly dropped.