Gun law loophole leaves assault rifle within reach

‘‘What we have done is take out of circulation those firearms specifically designed with military applications to kill people.’’ Stuart Nash

Critics of the Government’s gun law changes say a loophole means that a lower-powered version of the assault rifle used by the Christchurch mosque shooter remains legal.

Police have confirmed that an AR15 WMR .22 semi automatic with military-style features does not fit the definition of a prohibited firearm under the new law, provided it is fitted with a magazine holding 10 rounds or less.

The mosque shooter used a more powerful, centrefire version of the AR15, with large capacity magazines, during his rampage, which left 50 people dead.

He had bought his weapons on a standard firearms licence and illegally converted them to militarystyle with easily obtainable parts.

The Government banned all centrefire ‘‘military style’’ semi-automatics, but less powerful rimfire .22 semi-automatics remain legal for people holding a standard firearms licence.

Those weapons range from rifles that use standard .22 long rifle (LR) ammunition to a cartridge more than two times as powerful – the .22 WMR (Winchester Magnum Rimfire), also known as the .22 MAG.

Some versions of the WMR, including the AR15, have features such as a pistol grip and collapsible butt stock, giving them the appearance of military assault rifles.

Northland man Michael Beckett said he warned the select committee considering the changes that the .22WMR would become the weapon of choice of AR15 owners and become a threat to the public.

He was surprised it had not been covered in the amended law and feared it was a loophole that would be exploited.

Beckett said the standard .22LR was more than sufficient for pest control on farms – he described the .22 MAG as a ‘‘double deadly cartridge’’ with 2.6 times the muzzle energy of .22LR. He said although larger capacity magazines had been banned, it only took a couple of seconds to change out the 10-round magazines.

Beckett believes New Zealand should have followed the Australian lead and banned rimfire semi-automatics, with exceptions for the likes of pest controllers and farm workers.

But firearms lawyer Nicholas Taylor said guns such as the AR15 WMR were ‘‘not as scary as they look’’ – they were far less powerful than centrefire rifles and designed for small game use only.

Taylor said the military-style look was misleading – black plastic aftermarket stock kits could fit any semi-automatic .22 rifle.

Asked if he had concerns about any of the weapons still legal under the new regime, Police Minister Stuart Nash said the .22 rimfire was exempt from the ban because it was a ‘‘tool of the trade’’ in rural communities.

‘‘The bottom line is, any firearm can kill someone. We understand that,’’ he said.

‘‘What we have done is take out of circulation those firearms specifically designed with military applications to kill people.’’

Sydney University gun policy expert Philip Alpers said people often characterised .22 rifles as ‘‘almost harmless bunny guns’’ but studies showed they were the most frequently used firearm in homicide and suicide.

‘‘By once again ignoring the Australian experience, New Zealand may only be shifting the killer’s choice of weapon from one calibre to another,’’ Alpers said.

There is also concern that military-style pistols remain legal for the 4000 or so people licensed to own them.

Conversion kits which add a bump stock and scope to the Glock 17 pistol, making it similar in appearance to an assault rifle, remain on sale.

A poll this week found that 61 per cent of people thought the gun law changes were about right, but 19 per cent thought they didn’t go far enough.

Dr Marie Russell, from the Otago University department of public health, said the changes made so far were good, ‘‘but we didn’t go far enough and it would be good to look at making more constraints around the capacity of these firearms.

‘‘If you can make 10 shots at once that’s very concerning,’’ Russell said.

Chris Cahill, president of the Police Association, said the initial ban did still leave firearms available that posed a ‘‘significant risk’’.

‘‘But we believe to ensure that significant change was achieved quickly, it was better to focus on the larger calibre semi-auto weapons. This meant less opposition and enabled the quick passing of the much needed law.’’

Political campaign consultant and firearms user Simon Lusk said there had to be a balance between the cost of a policy and the benefit it provided.

‘‘Buying back huge numbers of rimfire semi-automatics would be extremely expensive for little public benefit.’’

Lusk said there were thought to be about 400,000 such weapons in New Zealand, ‘‘and they are not guns designed for killing people as the MSSAs are.

‘‘I believe the Government has largely got the balance right.’’

Assistant police commissioner Tusha Penny said any gun could be used to cause harm and the newly prohibited firearms, parts and magazines were chosen ‘‘based on their ability to cause harm in a fast and highly destructive way’’.

She said restrictions in Australia differed across states.

‘‘The changes decided by Parliament here are based on a New Zealand specific environment.’’

Nash said the next round of changes to firearms law would address licensing, vetting and storage rules ‘‘amongst other issues’’.