Military ammo ban ‘rational’

Owners of military ammunition that was banned on the police minister’s recommendation in the wake of the Christchurch mosques attack have no right to compensation, the Crown says.

Ten types of ammunition were banned but two in particular – tracer and enhanced penetration ammunition – were the focus of Council of Licensed Firearms Owners court action to establish property rights and the right to compensation.

Their lawyer told a judge the ban had not advanced the public safety purpose of the Arms Act.

Justice Francis Cooke, in the

High Court at Wellington, has reserved his decision on the application to review Police Minister Stuart Nash’s recommendation. He said he had to decide if banning the ammunition was deprivation of property or legitimate regulation.

The council also wanted the court to look at whether the owners should be compensated for losing ammunition that went on the banned list.

But the Crown has defended Nash’s recommendation and said no compensation was owed.

Yesterday, Crown lawyer Austin Powell said the change deliberately did not provide for compensation, unlike the government buy-back scheme for semiautomatic firearms and parts banned in a separate law change soon after the mosque shootings that killed 51 in March 2019.

Taking banned ammunition couldn’t be compared to when compensation was paid for private property that was taken for public works, he said.

The council’s lawyer, Jack Hodder, said if it was a deliberate decision not to compensate people for lost ammunition then that would have been clearly stated.

The court was told there were legitimate civilian uses for military ammunition and the casings could be a cheap source of brass. Parts could also be converted to more useable forms of ammunition.