News from New Zealand:

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 military-style 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.

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.

Oooo … a “double deadly cartridge.”  Damn.  Must get one of those.

To my readers in New Zealand (I know I have some), don’t be satisfied with the crumbs that fall from the master’s table like a dog.  Not that I have anything against the nice little .22 WMR (Kel-Tec makes a .22 WMR carbine), but a rimfire cartridge will always be a rimfire cartridge.  It’s dirtier and less reliable than a centerfire cartridge.

You have a God-given right to what you have sitting inside your gun safe right now, and more.

News from New Zealand.

Stripping farmers of their semi-automatic weapons and forcing them to use contractors for pest control is “completely illogical”, Federated Farmers says.

However, Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern says proposed legislation has tried to anticipate the “legitimate needs” of farmers.

On Monday, the Finance and Expenditure Committee released its report on a new law to ban semi-automatic and military-style weapons.

It recommended the bill be passed but suggested several changes, including allowing semi-automatic firearms to be used for pest control on farms.

Farmers would not be allowed to do the work themselves and would have to use specialised businesses approved by police.

“We consider that there would be some narrow circumstances where use of a prohibited firearm was absolutely necessary to carry out pest control on private land or non-conservation Crown land for conservation, environmental, or economic reasons,” the report said.

“Our recommendation would allow a private landowner to engage a wild-animal or animal-pest control business to use such firearms while still removing most semi-automatic firearms from circulation.”

Federated Farmers rural security spokesman Miles Anderson said the Government had failed to deliver on its commitment to landowners that they would continue to have access to the weapons required for effective pest control.

“There are five million hectares of privately owned high and hill country in New Zealand. What these landowners have been left with is the equivalent of painting the Auckland Harbour Bridge with a toothbrush.”

He said Federated Farmers had backed the Government on the issue of gun law reform from day one, based on the need to both protect public safety and ensure continuing access to the appropriate firearms for those with a genuine need.

“The whole select committee has shown both a lack of trust and a complete lack of understanding of the needs of the rural sector on this issue,” he said.

“Labour has the opportunity to fix the bill over the next few days, otherwise Federated Farmers will feel duped by this process.”

However, Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern said all elements of the gun debate had been considered and she hoped it had created an outcome there would be support for.

The proposed changes were in stark contrast to the Australian legislation and tried to anticipate the legitimate needs that existed within the farming community, she said.

When asked if the requirement for farmers to employ contractors for pest control sent a signal she did not trust them, Ardern replied,  “Absolutely not.”

“We created carve outs, particularly around the use of 10-round .22s five round shotguns but beyond that have put in place measures, where there is large scale pest eradication, for framers (sic) to be able to access those who can legitimately use those weapons, too.”

But Anderson said requiring farmers to use contractors for pest control was ineffective and inefficient and rural landowners with a genuine need to use the weapons should be eligible to apply for an exemption.

“For generations farmers have been doing that job and now they’re going to have some of the tools that allow them to do it effectively taken away.

“We’re not talking about AK-47s and we’re talking about hundreds of farmers, not thousands,” he said.

“There are farmers who are dealing with rabbits and they shoot tens of thousands every year. In those situations, a 50-round magazine wouldn’t be excessive.

“If you’ve got a mob of 30 goats, a 50-round magazine is probably the right tool for the job.”

You see, in a land where peaceable men give up their guns, the government gets to decide what is and isn’t allowed, and when “special people” get to do things that others do not.

And the government gets to decide “carveouts,” where they throw a bone to the slighted, call it even, and tell you there’s no room for debate.

And here’s a news flash for Mr. Anderson.  Naïve gun owners, who think they can just appeal to the sensible side of government for “special needs,” as long as it is someone else who gets the shaft, are always, always duped by the process.

I’ve told the Fudds among us before, and you’d better listen to me again.  “When you let the government go after other people because you aren’t affected, not only is that selfish and cowardly, it’s bad strategy.”

When you use bad strategy, you will always lose.  So your precious break-action or pump shotguns for fowl hunting, and your bolt action guns with a detachable magazine for deer hunting, yea those.  The FedGov will want those too.  They want all of the guns.  All of them.  No exceptions.

This picture of New Zealand – the American gun controllers and the FedGov is watching closely.  It’s a trial run, boys.

From reddit/firearms:

One never knows exactly what to think of some of the sources on reddit, this may be legitimate and it may not be.  But the weight of evidence is on the side of legitimacy.  Gateway Pundit has this.

Now that police in New Zealand are going door-to-door to confiscate firearms, which involves bird-dogging people at work and monitoring their online activity, one man who has gotten caught up in the covfefe was recently stripped of his airsoft BB guns and his crossbow.

Here’s the letter.

NOTICE TO SURRENDER AIRGUN OR ANTIQUE FIREARM

PURSUANT TO SECTION 41, ARMS ACT 1983

I, Inspector Olaf Karl Jensen, a Commissioned Officer of Police, hereby give notice that in my opinion you are not a fit and proper person to be in possession of an airgun or an antique firearm. Police are currently holding the following described airguns

1x Ruger Blackhawk .177 calibre Air rifle

1x Hatsun Striker .177 calibre Air Rifle

You may within three months after the date of this Notice or such longer period as the Commissioner of Police may allow, sell or otherwise dispose of any airgun or antique firearm owned by you to a person approved for this purpose by a member of the Police.

Failing that, all airguns or antique firearms delivered to a member of the Police may be detained for such a period as the Commissioner of Police thinks fit, or may, in the discretion of the Minister of Police, become the property of the Crown, free and discharged from all right, title or interest possess in respect thereof by any person.

You may by way of origination application, appeal to a District Court Judge against this Notice. (Section 62, Arms Act 1983 refers).

My reason for this decision is as follows;

1. I do not believe you to be a fit and proper person to be in possession of an airgun.

2. Police hold serious concerns regarding your mental and emotional wellbeing.

Should you wish me to review my decision or you dispute the facts you may make written submissions or arrange an appointment with me within two weeks of the date of this notice.

Any submissions you do make must be accompanied by a letter from a medical practitioner attesting to your mental and emotional wellbeing at this time.

His next related post to Facebook reads thusly.

Here is the states there’s that pesky second amendment thing.  The elitists are doing their dead level best to get around that with red flag laws (so-called extreme risk protection orders).  When Ms. Lindsey Graham and the democrats get finished with a federal red flag law, Trump will sign it.

And then Trump owns it – that and the bump stock ban.  It defines who he is, and who he will ever be.  As for Ms. Graham, the stupid voters of South Carolina will put him in office for yet another six year term.

Reuters:

“I don’t think we need military-style weapons in our society. I definitely don’t need them in my job,” he says. “It’s like driving around in a Ferrari, you don’t need it.”

Yea, you’d better check that nice bolt action long gun you’re sporting, boy.  For military snipers the world over, that’s a military gun.  It’s used differently than the AR-15 which is for CQB.  That’s a stand-off weapon.

Sooner or later, the government won’t allow you to have it.  Say, right about the time somebody sits in a tower or tall building or the bush somewhere and shoots enough humans to cause emotional outrage.

When you let the government go after other people because you aren’t affected, not only is that selfish and cowardly, it’s bad strategy.

Dear Cecile,

I notice that the link you provide to notify the New Zealand Police that I intend to turn in my firearms doesn’t allow me to enter any information.  That sucks.  I’m absolutely livid about this.

I’ve decided to turn in some firearms.  Actually, I need to be more precise.  I have 8616 firearms, and by my calculations this is somewhere on the order of a $10 million collection.

I’ve had a talk with God about this, and after that talk I’ve decided to turn in one, leaving me with 8615 firearms.  I know what you’re thinking?  Why would he turn in just one?

Well, the specific firearm I intend to relinquish is an XM556 Microgun.  I’m sick and fed up listening to my wife complain about all of the ammunition sitting around.  Also, the floors of my house are beginning to sag from all of the weight.  Every … single … room.  Finding a place to put it all has been a bitch.

This has turned into a $10,000 per week habit.  I know you think I need an intervention, Cecile, but you’re too late.  I’ve conducted my own intervention, and I’ve decided to break the habit.  It’ll be hard, and I need your prayers.

So please, please inform the New Zealand Police that I intend to turn in my 5.56mm Gatling gun.  In fact, please also forward this post to your contacts in the New Zealand Police.  I thought I’d drop it in UPS, and within a week or so it should show up on their doorstep.  Or if you’d like, I can send it to you for safe keeping.  Be careful, though.  It’s addictive.

Yours very truly.

ps: I decry and herewith denounce the troll who said he had nuclear weapons he wanted to turn in.  I would never do something like that.

The Washington Post:

New Zealand’s gun lobby shares many of its goals with the United States’ National Rifle Association, the world’s biggest gun lobby organization, which supports aligned politicians financially and uses social media to attack its opponents. Some of the NRA’s frequent arguments may also apply in New Zealand, with an estimated quarter of a million gun owners in a country of only 5 million people.

[ … ]

But unlike the NRA, New Zealand’s interest groups have predominantly lobbied the government quietly, rather than threatening politicians with the scorn of their powerful voter base. The perceived silence of those lobbying organizations led to some calls from gun enthusiasts for a bolder and more vocal stance. New Zealand’s gun lobbies were probably well aware, however, that they are not the NRA and never will be, despite the aspirations of some of their members.

The country’s lobby mainly represents a core of rural supporters, whereas more than 86 percent of New Zealanders now live in urban areas and form a largely liberal majority. In the United States, the ratio of citizens living in urban areas is slightly lower. More important, however, the U.S. system of representation and the way congressional districts are drawn increase the significance of rural Republican voters disproportionately. That helps explain why the NRA can pressure politicians into following its demands, even though NRA supporters account for only a fraction of all U.S. voters.

[ … ]

“Our form of government, with a Senate that gives extraordinary power to rural states over urban states and is deferential to states’ rights, makes it difficult to advance relatively modest gun-control measures, much less more sweeping measures,” said Webster, the gun policy expert.

In contrast, New Zealand’s election system is designed in a way that the number of lawmakers a party has in Parliament is aligned with its share among all votes cast. The mixed member proportional voting system — which is also in place in countries such as Germany — is supposed to prevent small interest groups from being able to gain disproportionate influence over lawmakers. To pass legislation, only a simple majority is needed.

This is what happens when writers who have no knowledge of American culture consult with “gun experts” (i.e., progressive gun controllers) for analysis and perspective (take a quick look at their creds, they’ve likely never set foot in middle America among the “great unwashed masses”).  The entire article turns out to be a joke.  So let’s spend a few minutes fisking this, shall we?

First, we learn this from WiscoDave at Kenny’s place about what is going on in New Zealand.

My brother is a plumber in NZ he said a lot of work sites have come to a grinding halt because they can’t buy PVC pipe. ….he said NZ is basically burying their guns and gun City is running low on stock of semi autos.

It isn’t obvious whether there will be turn-ins, confiscations, or massive non-compliance.  We’ll wait and see.

Next, it’s the bad ole’ electoral system that’s at fault.  It can’t be the millions upon millions of AR-15 owners out there whom the FedGov knows will not comply with such a thing, nor the hundreds of millions of pistol owners who will do the same.  No, it’s the electoral system which is at fault.  Without it, according to the authors, we would have gun control on par with the rest of the world because that’s what people really want.

Third, notice the ubiquitous meme of the evils of the NRA, awful bullies they are, and how they can allegedly turn on their members like a light switch.  What’s not mentioned by these authors is that the NRA is losing membership, but gun owners are hardening their positions while the NRA tries to catch up.

Among educated readers here at TCJ, the NRA is known not as the largest gun rights organization on earth, but as the largest, most well-funded, most well-connected gun control organization on earth, having given cover or impetus for the National Firearms Act, The Gun Control Act of 1968, the bump stock ban and red flag laws popping up all over the nation.  It’s a game they play, you see, where they support gun control, tell their members they need money to fight it, and enrich themselves in the process.  But American gun owners, many of them, are no longer falling for it.  Thus, everyone whose address is known by the NRA is receiving ever more frantic calls for money from Chris and Wayne.  It’s sad, really.

What the authors don’t understand is that gun owners are not a top-down kind of people.  They don’t wait for “leaders” to tell them what to think like the statists do.

And that’s why New Zealand gun control won’t work in America (and may not work in New Zealand either).  It has nothing whatsoever to do with the electoral system, nor the NRA, nor any of the other bits of “wisdom” imparted to these authors by the “gun experts.”

American gun owners won’t comply.  And that’s the end of the story right there.  It’s really rather simple, and I could have boiled this all down to that single sentence.  The authors were probably paid by the word for that story.  In the future, journalism classes should force their students to go live somewhere other than Georgetown, Johns Hopkins, Columbia, Duke or NYU.  They need some perspective from someone other than their Marxist professors.

American gun owners won’t comply because they know the history of people who turn in their guns.  It always means loss of rights, and sometimes it means loss of life (It’s funny how someone who knows a lot more than these two authors, like Dave Kopel, can write such a clear-headed commentary for the very same news organization, The Washington Post, yes?).  Gun control always precedes utter totalitarianism.

News from New Zealand.

“We’ll be working with everyone to take those firearms off them and into a place of safekeeping,” he told media this afternoon.

“The first step is to do it voluntarily, we’ll then be working to ascertain if they haven’t complied and those people will be in all likelihood prosecuted,” Mr Bush said.

There were about 250,000 firearm holders in New Zealand, he said. People wishing to surrender their firearms must first contact police – either online or by phoning at 0800 311 311.

Referring to CCTV footage of the mosque attacks, Mr Bush said: I’ve seen that footage. It’s really disturbing. I don’t think that kind of thing should be in the public domain.”

Yea, I’ll bet you don’t.  There appears to be problems with it too numerous to catalog.  But as to confiscations, how is that going to happen?

“New Zealand is at a considerable disadvantage to countries that have had registries, because there’s no way of tracing the firearms because they don’t know who’s got them,” Mr. Alpers said. “We’re relying entirely on the honesty of the gun owner to turn it in.”

And there you have it.  That’s the value of a registry to the communists.

I don’t intend to comment generally on the shooting in New Zealand.  I’m sure enough has been said already, and besides, that isn’t what I wanted to focus on.

Changes are coming to New Zealand guns laws.  Big ones, if you believe the PM.  She’s hell bent on doing it.  Apparently there is support among the general population (and read especially this comment thread), but on the other hand, New Zealand gun sales have increased since the Christchurch attack.

David Codrea observes that the already restrictive nature of gun laws didn’t do a thing to prevent the attack.

Special license endorsement firearms require a “genuine reason” for possession, “including sports shooting, hunting, and collection. Owning a firearm for self-defence is specifically excluded, and prohibited.”

New Zealand requires criminal and mental health checks with third-party character references. It has licensing and registration “of individual civilians licensed to acquire, possess, sell or transfer a firearm or ammunition.” It has domestic violence prohibitions.  Compare that to the “Universal Background Check” and “Red Flag/ERPO” edicts demanded for the U.S. as “common sense.” Private sales require a license, and “The buyer of a firearm in a private sale in New Zealand is obliged to pass official background checks before taking possession.”

The very same laws, by the way, the collectivists want for America.  But as we all know, stopping crime isn’t really the point of gun laws anyway.

As a bracing reminder of this, you might spend a minute rehearsing the twenty one mass shootings in Australia since their gun control laws went into effect.

And then ask yourself and your spouse, “Do we ever really want to rely on anyone else for protection of home and hearth?”