Talk:Gun law in New Zealand

message: Here's the March 2024 "licencing and registry snapshot" which shows there are 159,417 registered firearms plus 7,518 firearm "parts", not *1.5 million*  as per the article.
There are 33,477 registered gun owners in the country, not 300,000 as per the article.
Supporting evidence:   https://www.firearmssafetyauthority.govt.nz/sites/default/files/2024-04/Firearms%20Public%20Dashboard%20-%20March%202024.pdf
These PDFs come from the official governmental body for firearms, and are update monthly at    https://www.firearmssafetyauthority.govt.nz/news-and-publications/proactively-released-information  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.208.140.125 (talk) 04:18, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Wildly Incorrect Numbers

message: I have done an offline copy edit of this page and will upload my edits within the next couple days. Livitup (talk) 19:19, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyediting

message: This article isn't very clear on what is necessary to own a handgun. Could someone please expand on this? Hayden120 (talk) 08:08, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Handguns 

message: I have added the "F" endorsement to the page. It DOES exist but is uncommon so i have noted that on the page 203.97.48.199 (talk) 06:48, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Endorsements 

message: "This has currently not succeeded but current manoeuvrings by the New Zealand Police are attempting to reclassify large numbers of 'A' category firearms as 'E' category (MSSA), which requires them to be registered. This has been done though even by their own admission[3] the New Zealand Police cannot reliably register the current MSSA firearms." 
I'm this is pretty sure this has died a natural death has it not? assuming that is talking about the thumbhole stock bid they made.--Falcon5nz (talk) 04:59, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Reclassification

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 7 external links on Gun laws in New Zealand. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.guncontrol.org.nz/index.php?%2Farchives%2F71-Dominion-Post-Kiwis-go-for-the-big-guns.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070624135816/http://www.police.govt.nz/service/firearms/arms-code.pdf to http://www.police.govt.nz/service/firearms/arms-code.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080414094216/http://www.police.govt.nz/resources/1997/review-of-firearms-control/review-of-firearms-control-in-new-zealand.pdf to http://www.police.govt.nz/resources/1997/review-of-firearms-control/review-of-firearms-control-in-new-zealand.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070624135816/http://www.police.govt.nz/service/firearms/arms-code.pdf to http://www.police.govt.nz/service/firearms/arms-code.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080414094216/http://www.police.govt.nz/resources/1997/review-of-firearms-control/review-of-firearms-control-in-new-zealand.pdf to http://www.police.govt.nz/resources/1997/review-of-firearms-control/review-of-firearms-control-in-new-zealand.pdf
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://guncontrol.org.nz/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070727071032/http://www.peace.net.nz/cgc_fact_sheet.html to http://www.peace.net.nz/cgc_fact_sheet.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:37, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The article gives insufficient information on the Arms Act of 1983.  Section should state what was allowed & forbidden as of that Act.  An earlier section said that semi-auto pistols were made illegal long before that.  There is an earlier detailed section stating the various classes of permit; but one is wondering what existed like that with the 1983 act. The Arms Act 1983 section is just too vague. One would like to know the state of gun restriction prior to the "mass shooting" later which brought about further gun restrictions. (PeacePeace (talk) 18:00, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arms Act 1983 

message: In the second paragraph of the section headed Arms Act 1983 there was a dubious statement that
:Self-defence was no longer a valid reason to have a pistol
This statement did not come from a neutral point of view. The contributor seemed to be implying that before the 1983 Arms Act there was a valid reason to have a pistol for self-defence. Yet the original contributor omits to point out that pistols had been tightly controlled under previous legislation, at least since the 1920 Act, when one needed a permit to carry a pistol beyond the immediate proximity of one's dwelling. The legislative wording has hardly changed in respect of pistols since then.
In his 1997 report, retired judge Thomas Thorp deals with the issue of self-defence. In his opinion, self-defence had not been a valid reason to possess or own a firearm since at least the enactment of the 1920 Arms Act. Now that is not any old person's opinion, but one of a person with a judicial mind who has been asked to review the legislation in question. From his report it is clear he has researched all the preceding legislation, and sought the advice of other experts, as well as hearing submissions on the legislation and the issue of self-defence. He even goes so far as recommending that the Arms Act should include an explicit clarification about not owning firearms for self-defence. 
Also, the question of self-defence applies to all firearms, not just pistols. Consequently, the statement is not only wrong, it is misleading. If the self-defence topic is to be discussed, and it probably should be, it should be done somewhere else in the article, not under the Arms Act 1983 heading. Therefore I think the statement should be removed from this place in the article. Although that is not to say a similar statement couldn't be included when developing a verifiable argument about self-defence in some other place, just not under the current heading. - 210.86.82.145 (talk) 11:45, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I have now removed the irrelevant text. Please discuss if you disagree and want to put it back. - 210.86.82.145 (talk) 16:57, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Self-defence not a valid reason to have a gun 

message: In the second paragraph of the section headed Arms Act 1983 there was an irrelevant statement that pointed out that
:(although the Crimes Act 1961 states a person can use "reasonable force" to defend oneself and/or one's property, and nowhere in this act states a person cannot use a firearm for such purposes, while the arms act does not mention "directly in words" one cannot use a firearm for self-defence)
I think the issue of using a firearm for self-defence should be discussed in the article about the Crimes Act 1961, rather than a section about the 1983 Arms Act, since that is the relevant law. The original contributor had further confused things by using the ambiguous term this act and, as a result, is not clear about what piece of legislation is being discussed in the text. If having a firearm for self-defence is going to be discussed then there should be done in a separate section of the article, so the full argument can be put forward, rather than making an unverified statement about what the law does not say. In a common law jurisdiction, The Law includes not only the legislation but also the intent of the legislation that Parliament has enacted and the interpretation of the legislation by the Courts when they try to understand what Parliament intended the law to be, not just what it does say. In their Arms Manual, the Police helpfully cite two court decisions to support their policy that self-defence is not a ground for owning or possessing a firearm.
I think there is a place to discuss the use of a firearm in the context of self defence, the statement is not appropriate where it currently is, so should be removed. - 210.86.82.145 (talk) 11:45, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I have now removed the irrelevant text. Please discuss if you disagree and want to put it back. - 210.86.82.145 (talk) 16:45, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Using a firearm in self-defence  

message: Ooh boy, this page is a hot mess.
I've gone through and added a whole bunch of section headers that outline some of the worst offenders (mostly that there are very few citations and lots of information that's actually not supported by any citation at all), and fixed a LOT of tonal issues. There was a lot of talk about New Zealand's gun policies that were more personal opinion than anything, which I've removed, as well as issues with grammatical structures. 
I'm really not good with finding citations for gun-related information, as searching around for that information is difficult for me personally, but if anyone wants to do so, have at it. Mostly, I just kind of policed the page.
Gendfleur (talk) 06:59, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overarching Fixes Needed 

message: Seems like it could get a lot of traffic given current events.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.129.140.224 (talk) 15:26, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: This is probably a good idea. Current media statements suggest that gun laws are going to be changed but until then, perhaps just a comment reflecting this could be attached. --Maticulous (talk) 14:52, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lock this page?  

message: I'm not game enough to edit this article, but it could help provide context that public consultation on proposed law reform to streamline firearms vetting was already underway a month or so before the Christchurch shootings took place. — Jon (talk) 00:53, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consultation on law reform proposals already underway before the Christchurch tragedy 

message: The following comment is taken from this section:
::"The New Zealand First party supports the rights of New Zealanders to own and use firearms safely and responsibly for hunting, sport, pest control, target shooting, and Home Defence (Castle doctrine)."
Since there is no presumed or statutory right to gun ownership in New Zealand, this might be better expressed. Does the Party presume such a right or is this part of a policy framework they want to introduce? Flanker235 (talk) 11:05, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Positions of Political Parties