Court of Appeal: “no constitutional right to bear arms”

A political party (Kiwi Party) has failed in a legal claim that the Magna Cart and Treaty of Waitangi provide for a  constitutional right to bear arms.

Immediately following the Christchurch mosque massacre in March 2019 New Zealand firearms laws were tightened.

The Kiwi Party was formed and tried to oppose restrictions of ownership of semi-automatic weapons with high capacity magazines through the courts. The Crown applied to the High Court to have their 12 causes of action to be struck out and succeeded on claims 2-12.

The Kiwi Party took it to the Court of Appeal and amongst other things “argued that New Zealanders need access to semi-automatic weapons in order to match police fire power should the police resort to unlawful use of firearms against New Zealand citizens”

The Court of found these claims “were untenable and cannot possibly succeed”.

The Arms (Military Style Semi-automatic Firearms) Order 2019 (theOrder), was passed by the Executive on 21 March 2019 pursuant to s 74A(c) of the Arms Act 1983 (the Act) and remained in place for 21 days

The Arms (Prohibited Firearms, Magazines, and Parts) Amendment Act 2019 (the Amendment Act) took effect from 12 April 2019.

In addition to revoking the Order, the Amendment Act imposed restrictions on licensed arms dealers, amended the endorsement provisions under the Act and made it an offence to sell, supply or possess any prohibited firearms, magazines or gun parts, including semi-automatic firearms. The Amendment Act put in place a Government buy-back arrangement for the prohibited firearms, magazines and gun parts.

The legislature’s response to the events of 15 March 2019 was not, however, universally approved. The Kiwi Party was formed by a group of licensed firearms holders with the aim of challenging the lawfulness of the Order and Amendment Act.

Statement of Claim

Twelve causes of action are pleaded in the statement of claim filed in the High Court by the Kiwi Party. Those causes of action seek declarations and orders for, amongst other pronouncements, that the Amendment Act has “no force of law until validated by a subsequent general election or by referendum”.

A fundamental part of their claim was:

The Amendment Act breaches the Treaty of Waitangi, rights to private property, the Bill of Rights 1688; and is “unconstitutional” because it contravenes the “right to bear arms [which] is coincident with the balance of powers in English society”.

Does New Zealand recognise a constitutional right to bear arms?

Underpinning almost all aspects of the Kiwi Party’s case is the claim that New Zealand citizens have a constitutional right to bear arms and in particular, weapons, magazines and gun parts that have been prohibited by the Amendment Act.

This so-called constitutional right is said to be derived from ancient custom, which evolved into a common law right and was affirmed by Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights 1688 and the Treaty of Waitangi. In his supplementary submissions filed on 20 March Mr Minchin, counsel for the Kiwi Party, maintained ‘the right to bear arms is the practical application of the legal principles that ‘no power is unfettered’ and is the mark of a free society”.

Mr Minchin, submitted that New Zealanders need to be able to exercise their “constitutional right” to access semi-automatic weapons and large capacity magazines in order to be able to effectively defend themselves against any unlawful use of arms by agents of the Crown or Executive.

In particular, he argued that New Zealanders need access to semi-automatic weapons in order to match police fire power should the police resort to unlawful use of firearms against New Zealand citizens.

Mr Minchin acknowledged the “ugliness” of the proposition he was advancing.

But:

An examination of the constitutional instruments relied upon by Mr Minchin quickly exposes the fallacy of his argument that New Zealanders have a constitutional right to bear arms.

The obvious lacuna in this aspect of the case advanced for the Kiwi Party is that it assumes British subjects had an unbridled right to bear arms. As we have already noted, there was no such right. Any ability for a citizen to bear arms has, at least since 1689, been able to be regulated by laws passed by Parliament.

The court points out that the UK, Canada and Australia all have significant firearms regulations and limitations.

It is striking that the so-called right to bear arms is not referred to in any international human rights instrument, such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights or the European Convention on Human Rights. Of the 190 countries that have a written constitution, only the constitutions of Guatemala, Mexico and the United States refer to a right to bear arms.

The relevant parts of the constitutions of Guatemala and Mexico are modelled on the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution but expressly provide for limits according to law. Thus, it can be fairly said that the right to bear arms is an example of American constitutional exceptionalism.

Even in the United States, the ability of a citizen to possess and use firearms may be subject to legislative control. Thus, assault weapons have been banned by seven State legislatures, including those in California and New York.

The Court’s conclusions:

Our examination of the arguments advanced by Mr Minchin leads to the following conclusions:

(a) The so-called right to bear arms is not supported by any constitutional instruments that apply in New Zealand.

(b) In this country, as in almost all countries, a citizen’s ability to possess, own and use firearms is regulated by legislation.

(c) There are only three countries which have some form of constitutional right to bear arms.

(d) There is no constitutional right to bear arms in New Zealand let alone the arms that are prohibited by the Amendment Act.

Conclusion

The second to twelfth causes of action are untenable and cannot possibly succeed. The High Court therefore correctly struck out those causes of action.

The appeal is dismissed.

Judgment: THE KIWI PARTY INC v ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2020] NZCA 80 [24 March 2020]

Leave a comment

28 Comments

  1. Griff.

     /  2nd April 2020

    NRA is a death cult.

    yip take up arms against the police in force and they will call out the army
    Ours might be pathetic but it is still better prepared to wage war than the civilian population.
    Especially against the few wannabe Rambo nutbars who generate this sort of dribbling .
    Looking at you corky.

    Reply
    • Duker

       /  2nd April 2020

      A lot european countries , used to civil uprisings historically, have separate para military police forces.
      Italy, France, Spain etc
      Even the Germans
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Police_(Germany)

      Reply
      • Kitty Catkin

         /  2nd April 2020

        They did in Belgium when we were there (but it wasn’t cause and effect) Even ordinary rozzers were armed.

        There was a reasonable amount of terrorism going on, like the gangs who went into shops and opened fire.

        Reply
    • Corky

       /  2nd April 2020

      Look all you like. I was writing about similar present case scenarios when you were still trying to get your head around basic scientific inquiry. Here’s looking at you, kid! 😁

      Before I leave, here’s a hint… using a thick rubber band and a staple as a projectile will give you a 60% chance of hitting a target within 15 feet….good luck.

      Reply
  2. Alan Wilkinson

     /  2nd April 2020

    I hope we have a constitutional right to bare arms though.

    Reply
    • Corky

       /  2nd April 2020

      The government would rather you didn’t. But they allow certain liberties as long as the odds are in their favour should the need arise to exterminate some of their citizenry.

      I’m wonder how long before the army is called in? Should that happen, what will be their ‘rules of engagement?’

      Reply
      • Gezza

         /  2nd April 2020

        Very unlikely to be given shoot to kill orders unless under direct fire, and even then they’d probably fall back. Or bring up whatever armoured vehicles they still have these days?

        Reply
        • Duker

           /  2nd April 2020

          No such distinction here called ‘shoot to kill’. Its called lethal force for a reason. Batons, pepper sprays and tasers are the non lethal options

          Reply
          • Gezza

             /  2nd April 2020

            Oh? Ok. What do you think they mean by “lethal force”?

            Reply
            • Duker

               /  2nd April 2020

              Im just pointing your claim ‘unlikely to give shoot to kill’ is a non sequitur
              Anytime they pull the trigger they are using the lethal force option to kill someone

            • Gezza

               /  2nd April 2020

              Anytime they pull the trigger they are using the lethal force option to kill someone

              Yessssssss. In other words, they would be shooting to kill. There’s nothing wrong with using the vernacular to describe it.

              Go away now & be a picky wanker with somebody else.

            • Duker

               /  2nd April 2020

              #comedygold

            • Gezza

               /  2nd April 2020

              #dipstick

    • Gezza

       /  2nd April 2020

      Tbh some of the awful tats on young blokes n sheilas arms make me wish their bare arms were illegal.

      Reply
      • lurcher1948

         /  2nd April 2020

        HEAR HEAR Gezza, those tatted nutters who wear tank tops in driving snow to show off their latest ink, rather pathetic…interesting how tats will look when they become sagging oldies

        Reply
    • Kitty Catkin

       /  2nd April 2020

      I hope so, Alan, it’s still blimmin hot here.

      Reply
    • Alan Wilkinson

       /  2nd April 2020

      I reckon only bears have a right to bear arms and we don’t have any..

      Reply
  3. Duker

     /  2nd April 2020

    This is a legal firearm in NZ. Smith And Wesson as its magazine is 10 shots and its a .22 rimfire
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_%26_Wesson_M%26P15-22

    Reply
  4. Corky

     /  2nd April 2020

    ”The Court of found these claims “were untenable and cannot possibly succeed”.

    Yeah, that may come back to haunt them. What dimwits.

    Reply
    • Duker

       /  2nd April 2020

      ““That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law”.
      no mention of “right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”
      UK BoR explicitly says ‘as allowed by law’- the legislature gives and it can take away

      Reply
  5. Duker

     /  2nd April 2020

    This came up on kiwiblog and there was an interesting comment about UK Bill or Rights from pauldunmore
    The actual text of the Bill of Rights is “That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law”.
    So the first thing the petitioners would have to prove is that they are Protestants; there has never been any right to bear arms for Catholics, Jews, Moslems, Hindus or atheists.
    Then, the arms are “for their defence”; there is no right to bear arms for shooting rabbits or deer.
    Next, they would have to establish what arms are “suitable to their conditions”. For which class of Protestants, for example, would a semi-automatic rifle be suitable; what about a tank?
    Finally, they would have to show that the law allows it.
    No wonder they were laughed out of Court.

    Others mentioned the phrase ‘suitable to their conditions’ meant at the time the aristocrats and similar well to do. So no arms for the peasants and labouring class

    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