The current inquest into the worshippers killed in the Christchurch mosque attacks has been examining gun laws at the time of the 2019 atrocities, and how helped the terrorist acquire his weapons.
Author
- Alexander Gillespie
Professor of Law, University of Waikato
Inevitably, it has also put the spotlight on the coalition government’s , and how changes to licence vetting procedures and regulation .
Firearms control is a complex and contentious issue – but New Zealand can learn from other countries’ experience. It may surprise many, but one such country is the United States, where gun rights and restrictions are perennially – and often tragically – political.
Of course, there are fundamental differences between the US and New Zealand when it comes to the regulation of firearms. For Americans, the possession of guns is a right. For New Zealanders, it is a privilege. This has resulted in very different approaches to regulation, with the US undoubtedly more liberal – for which it pays a heavy price.
But it would also be wrong to assume New Zealand has nothing to learn from the US. Paradoxically, a more liberal approach to firearms ownership can produce tighter specific laws and regulations as a result.
There are four areas where New Zealand might learn from this as the government seeks to rewrite the Arms Act.
Some crimes should not be forgotten
The Americans take the position that anyone convicted of a crime punishable for a prison term exceeding one year (a “felony”) forfeits their right to .
Unless that right is restored, typically by petition or pardon (agreeing the person is no longer a risk), there is a this is a permanent ban. Supplementary ensure this law is generally enforced properly, keeping convicted criminals away from firearms.
(Even Donald Trump because of his conviction on 34 counts of falsifying business records during the 2016 presidential election.)
In New Zealand, the list of to deny a firearms licence is growing. But such disqualifications typically only from the application date, and are not indefinite.
Take ‘straw buying’ seriously
A “straw purchase” is when someone who is legally entitled to purchase or possess a firearm provides a weapon to someone prohibited by law from possessing one.
A 2023 showed 54% of the guns US police recovered at crime scenes in 2021 had been bought within the previous three years. This suggested straw purchasing or illegal trafficking was a significant problem.
Lawful owners illegally providing firearms to those who should not have them ( ) is also a .
Recently, in a remarkable piece of policing, NZ officers trawled through three years of hand-written records for more than 360,000 individual gun sales across 390 stores. This appears to have set the scene for the , including two former gun store employees, on charges of illegally on-selling guns.
In the US, the 2022 made gun trafficking and straw purchasing federal crimes for the first time. Until then, only light penalties applied. But the new law allows for prison sentences of up to 15 years – or up to 25 years if the firearm was used in , such as terrorism or drug trafficking.
In New Zealand, by contrast, selling or supplying restricted firearms to unauthorised people of up to three years in jail. The illegal sale of prohibited firearms or magazines (such as the type used in the Christchurch terror attack) of up to five years. The prison sentence for supplying someone subject to a firearms prohibition order can now be .
These changes, made in the aftermath of the Christchurch attacks, are at least an improvement. In 2018, the man who supplied Quinn Patterson with the military-style weapons he used to murder two people .
Minimum amounts of metal in all firearms
A particularly clever US law – since it was first signed by Ronald Reagan in 1988 – is the Undetectable Firearms Act. This makes it illegal to manufacture, import, sell, possess, transfer or receive any firearm not detectable by walk-through security systems.
Every gun must contain enough metal to set off X-ray machines and metal detectors. are any firearms with major components that do not generate an accurate image in standard airport imaging technology.
Although this alone won’t prevent the problem of unauthorised 3D printing of firearms, it is a step in the right direction for enhancing security in places such as court houses and airports. New Zealand has no similar law.
Mandatory reporting of firearms injuries
While firearms homicides are well recorded and shared with the police, there are often significant gaps in the data due to firearms injury reporting being optional.
Health professionals in New Zealand are only required to report an injury if they believe someone has a health condition that should prevent them holding a firearms licence.
But mandatory reporting of firearm injuries by medical professionals is common in a number of comparable countries. In the US, there are reporting requirements .
Mandatory reporting of all firearms injuries helps authorities track the extent and nature of wrongful firearms use. It can also prompt police visits and checks on the gun owner to ensure they are still “fit and proper” since their last licence renewal.
Despite these benefits – and the fact that mandatory reporting of firearms injuries by health professionals was into the Christchurch terror attack – the to take the matter further.
Revisiting the Arms Act presents a unique opportunity to make New Zealand safer. The first step is to look at what other countries can teach us. And while it may seem counterintuitive, and despite all the faults in its very liberal system, the US still has some ideas we should consider adopting.
