Gun Owners Attack Registration [New Zealand Gun Owners Not Buying Into Gun Registration]

http://xtramsn.co.nz/news/0,,3882-2260610,00.html ^ | April 4th 2003

[2nd_Amendment_Defender]

Gun owners are dismissing the argument that registering individual guns helps prevent the illegal smuggling of firearms.

The suggestion has come in a report on guns in the South Pacific, "Small Arms in the Pacific," which says New Zealand has the largest stockpile of weapons in the region. It also says New Zealand has the most permissive gun control regime.

It says New Zealand and the United States are unique among developed nations, in not registering individual firearms.

Council of Licensed Firearms Owners chairman John Howat says no-one has ever demonstrated how registration helps. He says the U.S. is not a good example, as anyone over 16 without a criminal record can own a pistol. He says by comparison, New Zealand only allows fit and proper people to own guns.

[2nd_Amendment_Defender]

[John Howat] He says the U.S. is not a good example, as anyone over 16 without a criminal record can own a pistol. He says by comparison, New Zealand only allows fit and proper people to own guns.

You have to be 21 to own a handgun in the U.S.A. Mister Howat for your information.

[BenLurkin]

They get the picture:

[konaice]

"John Howard: New Zealand only allows fit and proper people to own guns."

Fit and Proper being defined by who precisely???

[TC Rider]

Frankly, I'm surprised. I thought NZ was pretty lefty. Don't they refuse port to our nukies?

[Lancey Howard]

You have to be 21 to own a handgun in the U.S.A. Mister Howat for your information.

Say what?
I gave my 14 year-old a nice 9mm for his birthday. It's his, he owns it.

[Puppage]

"John Howard: New Zealand only allows fit and proper people to own guns."

I have a magic rock that keeps tigers away.

[farscaper]

To get a gun licence in New Zealand you have to be interview by the Police, who check your crimial record if you have one (no licence if you have one), they then interview those you have listed as referances. The type of guns aloud are non automatic, I don't know the details re hand guns - but until about 15 years ago gun crime in New Zealand was few and far between.

[Puppage]

To get a gun licence in New Zealand you have to be interview by the Police, who check your crimial record if you have one (no licence if you have one), they then interview those you have listed as referances. The type of guns aloud are non automatic

Sure feels good to be an American with a CCW.

[2nd_Amendment_Defender]

Say what? I gave my 14 year-old a nice 9 mm for his birthday. It's his, he owns it.

I wouldn't let Sarah Brady or the B.A.T.F. hear about that :-)

Have fun teaching your offspring at the shooting range.

[skinkinthegrass]

RIGHT ON...I know, it so 1960's ... :)

[riverrunner]

It's 21 to buy 18 to own. The 14 yoa can use it shoot it with his parents around. Just 4 short years for him to become the legal owner.

[Navy Patriot]

Lancey, I'm not sure about Keystone state gun laws, but you may have to be supervising your boy when he has posession of his pistol. Enjoy those great days while you teach him how a Marine shoots.

[supercat]

It's 21 to buy 18 to own.

Yes, but 21 to buy ammo (though there are all sorts of weirdnesses with that rule; someone with a .223 Bushmaster pistol and a semi-auto Uzi would have to be 21 to buy ammo for the former but not the latter, though most stores would happily sell the former ammo to a 19-year-old but not the latter.

BTW, would proof of ownership of an Uzi allow a 19-year-old to legally buy ammo for it? What are the exact rules?

[2nd_Amendment_Defender]

So is it a violation of law for an 18 year old to possess .45 ACP ammunition for a Sig Arms handgun?

[supercat]

So is it a violation of law for an 18 year old to possess .45 ACP ammunition for a Sig Arms handgun?

I don't believe so. Just to purchase it. On the other hand, since I don't think the statute defines "handgun ammunition" this creates all sorts of odd little wrinkles. For example, if an 18-year-old has a Ruger Mark II and a 10/22, he could buy ammo for the latter but not the former. He could, however, be given ammo for either. If he takes a box of ammo he bought to the range along with one he was given, and along with both his firearms, he could shoot ammo from either box in his 10/22, but in the Mark II he would only be allowed to shoot the ammo he was given; shooting ammo from the other box would mean he bought "handgun ammunition" illegally.

If you go to Wal-Mart and buy .22LR ammo, the cash register will ask if it's for a handgun. If so, it will ask "Over 21?" Otherwise it will ask "Over 18?". BTW, if you're buying multiple boxes and want to speed up the purchase process (and you're over 21), say "Yes" to the question the first time; once the system establishes you're over 21, it won't ask the question again. Otherwise it will ask the "For Handgun?" question for each box purchased [it will only ask the "Over 18?" question once].

[AMNZ]

I have good friends in NZ, mostly farmers. The govt can say what they want, I'd be surprised if there is general compliance.

[New Zealander]

The Police determine who is fit and proper - the law is very 'grey letter' - which is a great problem - the police need not explain why they feel someone is not 'fit and proper', and the only course of appeal is through a court - with legal fees of around $1500 NZD or thereabouts. The cost of a gun licence is something like $150 (may be higher at present). It’s a real mistake to put this power in the hands of the police, who essentially set the law by determining their policy on ‘fit and proper’.

[chicagolady]

Australia Wants to Let Army to Shoot Citizens

NewsMax.com
Wednesday, Aug. 23, 2000

Having forced Australians to surrender their guns, thereby increasing
the
crime rate markedly, the Australian government now wants to give the
Army
the power to shoot unruly citizens and allow it to use the military in
civilian emergencies.

According to the Sydney Morning Herald, students are calling on the
Labor
Party to reject a bill that would empower the army to mow down
protesters
during times of civil unrest. But the government is pressing to have
the
legislation in place in time for next month’s two major events: the
Sydney
Olympics and the World Economic Forum in Melbourne.

The bill has already passed the House of Representatives. The Labor
Party
expects it to pass in the Senate, with some amendments, recommended by
a
Senate committee.

Dom Rowe, a spokesman for Australia’s National Union of Students, told
the
Herald the proposed army powers were unnecessary because the police
should
be able to handle the protests without army assistance.

"If they (police) keep cool heads about it, they should be able to cope
with any of the situations that occur," Rowe said.

"As soon as you start allowing coercive force, as is required by this
new
bill, you are basically going to be exploding the situation and making
it a
lot more difficult and troublesome than it otherwise would be."

The heads of state governments also oppose the bill, warning that it
takes
away their rights. One Green Party member, Sen. Bob Brown, has issued a
dissenting report cautioning that the bill would allow the government
to
call out troops without getting state permission or consultating with
them
beforehand.

[TERMINATTOR]

Bang!

[KiaKaha]

I will mention it to him when I pop into his shop on the way to work.