National proposal could allow unconvicted ‘extremists’ to own guns

This seems like a contradiction on the National Party stance on firearms – they are talking tough on gangs with guns, but want to make it easier for people with “violent and extremist tendencies” to own guns?

Newsroom: Extremists able to own guns under National’s proposals

The National Party wants to water down a proposal to restrict extremists from obtaining a firearms license.

In a Supplementary Order Paper submitted on the Government’s Arms Legislation Bill, National’s Police spokesperson Brett Hudson proposes that a test for violent and extremist tendencies should only be applied to people who have been “convicted of an offence under the Human Rights Act 1993 or the Harmful Digital Communications Act 2015 relating to violent, hateful, or extremist speech or behaviour”.

However, Gun Control NZ’s Nik Green says this would allow many extremists to obtain a firearms license, pointing to the fact that no one in New Zealand has been convicted of such an offense under the Human Rights Act.

Police Minister Stuart Nash said Hudson’s SOP was “very concerning. I do not know why the Nats are not supporting this because it takes guns off gangs and it’s much tougher penalties for gun crime.”

Actually in practice (in my experience two years ago) a test for “violent and extremist tendencies” was already being used in firearm license renewal interviews.

So this SOP would looks like it could weaken that.

Leave a comment

48 Comments

  1. Corky

     /  5th March 2020

    First, let’s define ‘extremists.’ Then let’s looks at who’s providing the definition.

    Typical National…they wouldn’t know philosophical consistency if it kicked them in the face.

    Reply
    • Kitty Catkin

       /  5th March 2020

      Then why are you telling people to vote for them ?

      Reply
    • Corky

       /  5th March 2020

      Kitty is asking why am I telling people to vote for National.

      Hell, I don’t know. I just thought I would try something different.😃

      Reply
  2. Alan Wilkinson

     /  5th March 2020

    There certainly needs to be some judicial oversight of such a potentially arbitrary and subjective constraint.

    Reply
  3. David

     /  5th March 2020

    The state should do everything it can to stop prolific Twitter users and folk who adhere to there being only 2 genders from arming themselves

    Reply
    • Duker

       /  5th March 2020

      Self defense has never been a ‘proper reason’ in NZ to own a gun.
      Isnt in the US constitution either but the activist conservative judges on Supreme court ‘invented’ that legal justification for owning a hand gun in Heller case

      Reply
      • Corky

         /  5th March 2020

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution.

        It’s only a logical progression that ‘bearing arms” isn’t for playing chess; but for self defence. The Second Amendment does not guarantee everyone the right to bear arms.

        If this dozy National Party submitted a bill for the right to bear arms in self defence, many would vote against them..but I bet many more would vote for them.

        Reply
        • Duker

           /  5th March 2020

          Tell the NZ police thats your reason , and they will decline you. They clearly say its not a legit reason to apply for or own a gun
          “The law does not permit the possession of firearms ‘in anticipation’ that a firearm may need to be used in self-defence.”

          Click to access the-arms-code-2013.pdf

          Reply
          • Corky

             /  5th March 2020

            ”Tell the NZ police that’s your reason , and they will decline you.”

            I know. Banskie rocked up to his local Police Station and applied for a gun license for self defence. They basically told him to fugg off. That was a chap who was an ex Minster Of Police.

            But let’s be honest here, Duker. The Police and Government would rather see us dead then have a means of defending ourselves. How many people have been blown away with fire arms within the last year? I lost track at seven. How many others have been seriously assaulted and maimed.? Thousands.In your woke world that is OK. In my world that’s not OK.

            Reply
            • Kitty Catkin

               /  5th March 2020

              Seven ? There was a massacre in Christchurch that you seem to have forgotten; 50 people died in that. Or doesn’t it count if the victims are Muslim ?

              How many thousands in NZ were shot and maimed in NZ last year ? The idea that the Police and Government would rather see people dead than able to defend themselves is arrant nonsense.

              Do you mean John Banks when you use that disrespectful diminutive? Do use people’s proper names. If they don’t refer to themselves by a childish nickname, other people shouldn’t, either.

            • Corky

               /  5th March 2020

              Poor Kitty. Tries so hard to point score. I counted the Muslim victims as one person because it was one incident, even though there were multiple fatalities.

              Yes ,it does matter. While I have a major problem with Islam and Muslims, the fact is these victims were innocent. I stick up for the innocent while others don’t. I also paid respect to these mosque victims by not posting for three days. Of course Kitty didn’t.

              ”The idea that the Police and Government would rather see people dead than able to defend themselves is arrant nonsense.”

              Only an ignoramus would write that. If that was true, we would be able to defend ourselves with guns or weapons. We can’t as Duker has pointed out.

              ”Do you mean John Banks when you use that disrespectful diminutive?”

              No, I mean Johnny B. Goode. Of course not listening listening to talkback Kitty does not know that Banksie likes his nickname. However, he will not accept his name being spelt as Bansksy.

            • Duker

               /  5th March 2020

              Blown away by guns? Last week alone in Auckland was something like 7 with 2 dead..then there was Tauranga 2 dead the previous weeks .
              It’s only into March….it’s been happening for a while ..ramping up

            • Duker

               /  5th March 2020

              That’s nonsense about John Banks , he said recently he tried to get stricter gun controls after a previous massacre but was blocked by his party and is now glad we have finally had some action.

            • Corky

               /  5th March 2020

              ”That’s nonsense about John Banks .”

              About him applying for a gun license?

            • Duker

               /  5th March 2020

              https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/christchurch-shooting/111644333/haunted-john-banks-says-semiautomatic-weapons-should-have-been-banned-in-1990

              Caught again making up nonsense Corky, proof Banks wanted stricter gun controls.
              Doubt he’s ever owned a gun or wanted one

            • Blazer

               /  5th March 2020

              are you missing 3…fingers?

            • Corky

               /  5th March 2020

              I was a regular listener to his Talkback show. Where you, Duker? No.

              Well, unless Banksie was making up shit ( it was a time Banksie believed New Zealand was stuffed. The Attorney General been jailed. Other high profile people were before the courts and crime was rampant.),he said he rocked up to the Henderson Police Station to apply for a gun license for self protection.

              ”Caught again making up nonsense Corky.’

              Please don’t accuse me of things I aren’t. I have caught you out so many times your comments hold as much truth as a sieve.

            • Duker

               /  6th March 2020

              So thats a confirmation you made it up .
              Could be a ‘caller’ had that issue , and of course they were rebuffed by the police.
              I think the no self defence rule came in around the time Banks was Police minister, he was of course very very strongly pro Police , and they have for long time wanted tighter restrictions on guns..hes not the type as I have shown , to push back on that

        • Corky

           /  6th March 2020

          ”So that’s a confirmation you made it up.”

          It’s the truth. In fact I will try to contact Banksie to confirm my story.He also wanted the gun to protect his aging dog called ”Muldoon.”

          Meanwhile, would you either confirm or deny you listened to Banksie? If negative, I really need not take notice of anything you spout. If affirmative, I will test you..
          Banskie did many unusual things on his show that only a regular listener would know.

          Over to you, Duke. ..lol!

          Reply
          • Duker

             /  6th March 2020

            You cant recall something from say 15 yrs ago, neither can Banks ..remember the son he ‘cant recall’
            I have provided proof of Banks distaste for guns.
            Game over

            Reply
            • Corky

               /  6th March 2020

              The game hasn’t started. I recall the broadcast vividly. So must Banksie. You don’t forget applying for a gun license and being turned down by the Police.That just doesn’t happen.

              I will add to the story. It was around the time Banskie threatened to obtain a list of doctors who preformed abortions and read those names out on his show. He said that would allow us to identify these people; point to them and say ” he kills babies.” However, Banks must have received prudent legal advice because the naming and shaming did not eventuate.

              There was also the time Tami Iti and Fingers Fahey were vying for ‘low life of the week award.’ That was run by Banks each week.

              Seems to me you never listened to his show, Duker. Have you any stories to tell? 😆

            • Corky

               /  6th March 2020

              In fact I’m a little out with the years. But that’s besides the point. Here is the actual transcript so you can judge how good my memory is: re abortion.

              http://alranz.org/from-our-files-john-banks/

          • Conspiratoor

             /  7th March 2020

            Here’s a test for your powers of recall Corky

            Rodney Hide was a frequent caller to Banksie’s show. Rodney would line up for his ritual spanking every week. Before he came on Banksie would make a noise. What was that noise?

            Reply
            • Corky

               /  7th March 2020

              I can’t recall Rodney Hyde as a regular caller. I remember the John Carter call. That was hardcase..even Banskie had his suspicions.

              But no, I can’t remember Rodney. Give us a clue..it may jog my memory.

            • Conspiratoor

               /  7th March 2020

              Ah yes Hone Carter. A great call and one that the PC police would be down on like a ton of bricks today

              I didn’t get it but it was probably an inside joke. Clue would be a distinctive animal sound. Not complimentary

              A little off topic but Banksie soared to stratospheric heights of hypocrisy with his public stand on abortion before his past caught up with him

            • Corky

               /  7th March 2020

              Sorry C..it doesn’t ring a bell.

              Many people, it would seem, didn’t realise Banksie was a piss taker and hypocrite extraordinaire. Telling people to read their bible and his anti abortion stance were staples of his radio persona. And the Queensland incident must have bee a real beauty. Then there was the bee pollen fiasco. Ah, the golden days of talkback. Vicuous, nasty and fun. I miss it.
              Just now listening to some woke who believes the MMA shouldn’t let fighters hit each other on the ground. Fugg, has he ever witnessed a real street fight?

            • Conspiratoor

               /  7th March 2020

              Banks had no filters, a character trait that made him inherently offensive. But the rudest, crudest host in the golden days of radio was a fellow named Tim Bickerstaff. Reality TV for radio. Compelling listening

            • Corky

               /  7th March 2020

              Tim Bickerstaff. Rings a bell. I think he went on to import ‘Ignite For Men.’
              A herbal remedy for erectile dysfunction. I would have liked to have heard him.

            • Kitty Catkin

               /  7th March 2020

              If it’s the one I am thinking of. it was not a herbal remedy, it was an injection in the appropriate place.

              I have met John Banks and know that he hasn’t much sense of humour. If he says something, he means it.

              Hunting for a link on one subject doesn’t prove that you remember something else totally unrelated.

            • Corky

               /  7th March 2020

              Quote:

              ”Co-founders Tim Bickerstaff and Jenny Wheeler had a mission to cater for men and women wanting to get the most out of life and started the business in 1997. Former radio talkback host Tim was willing to talk publicly about men’s health issues at a time when many men still preferred to keep silent.”

              https://herbalignite.com/pages/about-us

      • Pink David

         /  5th March 2020

        “Isnt in the US constitution either but the activist conservative judges on Supreme court ‘invented’ that legal justification for owning a hand gun in Heller case”

        There is no requirement for a ‘reason’ under the US Constitution. The use of firearms for self-defense is self-evident.

        Reply
        • Duker

           /  6th March 2020

          . The Judges can only strike down laws based on the rules as laid out in constitution, in this case it was a local law that prohibited a personal gun in the home for self defense. Some states have legislated the opposite, a gun license cant be refused unless its for a felon etc
          NZ firearm rules also rule out self defense as a reason

          Reply
          • Pink David

             /  6th March 2020

            “in this case it was a local law that prohibited a personal gun in the home for self defense. ”

            That is a clear violation of the 2nd.

            Reply
  4. Zedd

     /  5th March 2020

    YES just showing that Natl are purely ideologically driven & just ‘singing to their true believers’ : Stop Drugs & Gangs.. BUT lets allow others to own, buy & sell all the guns they want, with very little actual controls ? :/

    Perhaps they need to be reminded that we are NOT under the USA constitution ‘The Right to bear arms’
    >It is a union jack in the corner of our flag, not USA stars/bars !!

    Reply
    • Duker

       /  5th March 2020

      US doesnt have a Federal ‘right’ to bear arms. Lots of situations where you cant have them as of right, and until recent Heller case when SCOTUS invented right to self defense in home with a pistol only. No legal right to have anything other a handgun at home, but not if you have a conviction or mental illness etc etc

      Reply
      • Pink David

         /  5th March 2020

        “US doesnt have a Federal ‘right’ to bear arms.”

        Correct. The constitution explicitly prohibits the government from regulation of guns, therefor there is no need for a right to bear arms as all men are free to do so.

        “Lots of situations where you cant have them as of right”

        This is entirely unconstitutional.

        Reply
        • Duker

           /  6th March 2020

          No it doesnt.
          ““A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” As part of a well regulated militia. Personal self defence didnt come into it until Heller decision invented the personal self defense issue.
          Its never been seen as the local legislatures have no power to restrict guns.
          Plenty of restrictions on felons, sex offenders, mentally ill etc
          heres a timeline of Federal restrictions which wouldnt be allowed if it was a ‘personal right’ like you said
          https://time.com/5169210/us-gun-control-laws-history-timeline/

          Individual states have of course legislated for ‘less restrictions’ , to the point of open slater. But its an actual state law not the constitution which says so

          Reply
  5. Alan Wilkinson

     /  5th March 2020

    “Hateful” speech or behaviour would certainly rule out most anti-Trump Lefties.

    Reply
    • Duker

       /  5th March 2020

      Really ?
      have you even looked at some of the things Trump has said …. oh thats right you call it ‘kidding’

      Reply
      • Alan Wilkinson

         /  5th March 2020

        Yes really. Of course Trump would be ruled out too on speech grounds unless politicians get a licence to exaggerate, amplify and vilify which they almost universally need.

        Reply
  6. Patzcuaro

     /  7th March 2020

    And in the US a Republican congressman has an AR-15 on his Capitol Hill office wall. As they are banned in the District of Columbia he probably committed an offence when he took it on to Capital Hill.

    The District of Columbia has some of the strictest gun laws in the nation, and AR-15s are banned. However, according to the Capitol Police, “members of Congress may maintain firearms within the confines of their office and they and any employee or agent of any member of Congress may transport within the Capitol Grounds firearms unloaded and securely wrapped.”

    https://thehill.com/homenews/house/486321-gop-lawmaker-shows-off-ar-15-in-office-challenges-biden-to-come-and-take-it

    Reply
    • Duker

       /  7th March 2020

      The DC police dont have jurisdiction on the Capitol buildings and grounds, thats the Capitol Police who are responsible to Congress not the President

      Reply
      • Patzcuaro

         /  8th March 2020

        But the AR-15 would have passed through DC to get onto Capitol Hill.

        Reply
        • Alan Wilkinson

           /  8th March 2020

          DC gun laws have repeatedly been struck down as unconstitutional.

          Reply
          • Duker

             /  8th March 2020

            Only by making up a new interpretation of the constitution about ‘personal self defence’ which is nowhere to be found in constitution and had never before had been used in court judgments.
            It does say ‘bear arms as part of a well regulated militia’…its pretty clear thats the only context thats ‘constitutional’ Plenty of legislatures can and do allow much more lax restrictions, indeed they specify a gun license in most cases cant be refused. But laws that are made can be unmade

            Reply
            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  8th March 2020

              No, you are stretching the meaning of the sentence in contemporary context. If it said for self defence you had the right to bear arms it wouldn’t restrict you to the moments you were actually defending yourself. Same with forming a militia when necessary.

  7. Patzcuaro

     /  7th March 2020

    Looks like the National Party wants to wait until an extremist commits an offence before banning him or her from owning firearms. Under this scenario the Christchurch shooter would have been able to obtain firearms as he had not be convicted of anything prior to the shooting that I know of.
    Sounds like an ambulance at the bottom of the cliff.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s