Prosser Richard: Arms (Military Style Semi-automatic Firearms and Import Controls) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Prosser Richard: Arms (Military Style Semi-automatic Firearms and Import Controls) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 22 May 2012. Volume:680;Page:2286. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
RICHARD PROSSER (NZ First) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak to this bill the Arms (Military Style Semi-automatic Firearms and Import Controls) Amendment Bill. New Zealand First is pleased to have the opportunity to make our first input into this important bill but we would strongly urge the House to re-examine several aspects of this bill with a view to amending certain of its provisions in order to bring the bill into line both with its stated intentions and with the intent of the principal Act.  
New Zealand First is a firm advocate of the rights of responsible law-abiding firearms users and we support any moves that will increase and improve the level of safety surrounding the availability and use of firearms in society without unnecessarily impinging on the rights of those law-abiding users. We would like to support this bill but we cannot in all good conscience do so while it remains in its present form. There are certain aspects of the bill’s construction that we intend to address by way of a Supplementary Order Paper.  
We are concerned as are many correspondents from within the law-abiding firearms community about the potential for any semi-automatic firearm to be declared a military-style semi-automatic firearm under the regulatory provisions of the Act and we have doubts that the requirement for a separate Act of Parliament to validate any such regulations provides a sufficient safeguard against any such declaration being made counter to the intent of the primary Act that being the Arms Act 1983. New Zealand First contends that the intent of the primary Act was very clear in its desire to draw a distinction between those firearms that were obviously of military style and those that were of obviously sporting configuration. To that end we would prefer to see an additional clause inserted further to the provisions of new section 74A to the effect and with the intention of ensuring that no regulation shall be made in respect of the definition of “military style semi-automatic firearm” if that definition is contrary to the intent of the principal Act.  
We are also concerned as are many lawful firearms users about the issue of pistol grips. We note from a reading of the background material to the bill that many submitters to the Law and Order Committee contended that even a fully free-standing military pattern pistol grip was not of material importance in terms of the potential danger to public safety purported to be posed by semi-automatic firearms. It is our belief and concern that the bill in fact makes the definition of “pistol grip” less clear and concise than is the case in the existing legislation rather than more so. We are concerned that the regulatory provisions of the bill with regard to pistol grips may indicate a desire in certain quarters to restrict access by the law-abiding firearms community to semi-automatics generally on what we would describe as the contestable grounds that firearms that resemble those of a military pattern are somehow inherently more dangerous than those that do not or that have a more commonly recognised sporting configuration. It is our opinion that any such actual potential danger from semi-automatic firearms was addressed by the restrictions on magazine capacity for both rim fire and centre fire firearms in the 1992 regulations.  
We are bound to accept at face value the bill’s contention that regulatory authorities must have the flexibility to respond to changes in manufacturing design but it remains our belief that thumbholes and Dragunov stocks do not of themselves contain any real or potential threat to public safety. It is true that pistol grips allow for a better hold and for more accurate placing of shots and it was for this reason that the manufacturers of military arms adopted this design feature from early sporting and hunting rifles whose use of the pistol grip pre-dates its inclusion in military long guns. But it does not follow in our estimation that the availability of a pistol grip even a fully free-standing one of the pattern commonly regarded as being military-style with regards to a semi-automatic rifle provides for any greater inherent or potential danger to public safety. The inclusion of a fully free-standing pistol grip may allow an assault rifle to be fired with one hand or from the hip but this is only of advantage if the weapon is capable of fully automatic fire and all such firearms have long since been banned from civilian use in New Zealand.  
In addition genuine assault rifles that include a fully automatic function those capable of what is more commonly known as machine-gun fire—for the benefit of members who may not be familiar with the difference—are in this modern day generally of short carbine construction and are not available. And even their civilianised semi-automatic counterparts are not available to civilian holders of A and E category firearms licences because the weapons themselves are physically too short to be owned on anything other than a licence that has a pistol endorsement. The length and weight of a long gun as it is defined in New Zealand law would preclude its accurate one-handed operation in any practical application even with a free-standing pistol grip and there is no advantage that I can see in firing any such weapon from the hip given that the accurate placement of shots from this firing position is dependent on the visual tracing of rounds fired in very rapid succession at a rate far in excess of the rate of fire that it is possible to obtain from a semi-automatic firearm which requires a separate pull of the trigger to facilitate the discharge of each subsequent round. Again New Zealand First believes that even if a person were capable of rapid trigger-pulling at superhuman speed the 1992 restrictions on magazine capacity would negate any advantage that this unlikely ability may provide.  
In addition to this there is the reality of the issue of the degree to which the pistol grip or thumbhole may be said to be incorporated into the stock of the firearm in question. It is this issue that is at the heart of the case of  
Lincoln v New Zealand Police 
. The firearm at the centre of the case in question was a Heckler and Koch SL8 which has a thumbhole stock. The stock in question quite clearly does not incorporate a free-standing pistol grip as the learned judge correctly determined and the police’s contention that it did forms the basis for the suspicion widely held in the firearms community that some of the police headquarters have a not very well hidden agenda to restrict or deny access to semi-automatic firearms by law-abiding firearms licence holders generally. One of the other firearms held up as an exhibit in the case was an AK-47 copy which had a connecting rod fitted between the base of the pistol grip and the butt of the stock in what is equally clearly a blatant and I may say a rather crude attempt to circumvent the letter of the law and which I believe that most reasonable firearms users would also agree breaches the spirit of the law. That spirit needs to be observed both ways and if the police generally desire to uphold that spirit then they should have no objection to the inclusion of the amendments to proposed section 74A as I have suggested.  
I would contend that the principal Act makes it very clear indeed what does and what does not constitute a free-standing military pattern pistol grip. It is not for the police to seek to rewrite the legislation as it is passed by this House; that is not the way democracy works in this country. I would also add that even in the case of the AK-47 copy with the rod between the base of the grip and the butt of the stock as with the thumbhole or Dragunov stock the presence of any physical barrier that impinges on the forearm of the user prevents the pistol grip from being held effectively in a one-handed fashion because the hand is not able to be held directly behind the grip. This is a false concern.  
New Zealand First is also not satisfied that the bill will sufficiently restrict access to powerful or realistic replica airguns by those purchasers who may have criminal intent. It is our belief that any airgun capable of generating a muzzle energy beyond a prescribed limit should be available only to firearms licence holders. At present only pre-charged pneumatic airguns are subject to this restriction. It is of concern to New Zealand First that these replica firearms and powerful airguns are all too often sought after by people who would not be granted firearms licences were they to apply for them on the grounds that their reasons for wanting those firearms would not be proper and sufficient. We do not believe that people who would ordinarily be denied real firearms should be able to obtain the next best thing either.  
We note a concern widely held throughout the firearms community that the bill focuses on extra restrictions on New Zealand’s 230000 licensed firearms owners yet fails to implement a single regulation that will punish the misuse of firearms by the criminal fraternity. We agree with these sentiments entirely.  
Finally and of great importance to this House and to the validity of this bill is the fact that it contains a basic error which if left uncorrected will exclude a large number of .22 rifles from its ambit. In Part 1 clause 4(1)(a)(ii) and (iii) define a calibre of .22 inches or less. The word “calibre” is somewhat interchangeable in terms of firearms terminology. The actual diameter or calibre of a .22 bullet is 0.224 of an inch which is obviously larger than the definition given. If this error is not corrected no semi-automatic .22 rifle in New Zealand will be covered by the bill. I own three such rifles myself and under this bill as it stands there will be nothing stopping me from going online and buying 30-round banana mags or 50-round box mags or indeed fitting them for belt feed if I so desire in true Rambo fashion.  
We would like to support this bill and we give notice to this House that we will be introducing a Supplementary Order Paper in order to address the areas of concern we have highlighted. We would urge the House to support this Supplementary Order Paper in order that we may reconsider giving our support to this bill. Thank you.