By Alexander Gillespie
The current inquest into the worshippers killed in the Christchurch mosque attacks has been examining gun laws at the time of the 2019 atrocities, and how lax controls helped the terrorist acquire his weapons.
Inevitably, it has also put the spotlight on the coalition government’s proposed changes to the Arms Act, and how changes to licence vetting procedures and regulation might affect public safety.
Firearms control is a complex and contentious issue – but New Zealand can learn from other countries’ experience. It may surprise many, but one such country is the United States, where gun rights and restrictions are perennially – and often tragically – political.
Of course, there are fundamental differences between the US and New Zealand when it comes to the regulation of firearms. For Americans, the possession of guns is a right. For New Zealanders, it is a privilege. This has resulted in very different approaches to regulation, with the US undoubtedly more liberal – for which it pays a heavy price.
But it would also be wrong to assume New Zealand has nothing to learn from the US. Paradoxically, a more liberal approach to firearms ownership can produce tighter specific laws and regulations as a result.
There are four areas where New Zealand might learn from this as the government seeks to rewrite the Arms Act.
The Americans take the position that anyone convicted of a crime punishable for a prison term exceeding one year (a “felony”) forfeits their right to possess a firearm.
Unless that right is restored, typically by petition or pardon (agreeing the person is no longer a risk), there is a strong presumption this is a permanent ban. Supplementary state prohibitions ensure this law is generally enforced properly, keeping convicted criminals away from firearms.
(Even Donald Trump fell foul of this law because of his conviction on 34 counts of falsifying business records during the 2016 presidential election.)
In New Zealand, the list of legal and other reasons to deny a firearms licence is growing. But such disqualifications typically only extend back ten years from the application date, and are not indefinite.
Take ‘straw buying’ seriously
A “straw purchase” is when someone who is legally entitled to purchase or possess a firearm provides a weapon to someone prohibited by law from possessing one.
A 2023 federal report showed 54% of the guns US police recovered at crime scenes in 2021 had been bought within the previous three years. This suggested straw purchasing or illegal trafficking was a significant problem.
Lawful owners illegally providing firearms to those who should not have them (including gang members) is also a problem in New Zealand.
Recently, in a remarkable piece of policing, NZ officers trawled through three years of hand-written records for more than 360,000 individual gun sales across 390 stores. This appears to have set the scene for the arrests of nearly 40 people, including two former gun store employees, on charges of illegally on-selling guns.
In the US, the 2022 Bipartisan Safer Communities Act made gun trafficking and straw purchasing federal crimes for the first time. Until then, only light penalties applied. But the new law allows for prison sentences of up to 15 years – or up to 25 years if the firearm was used in more serious crimes, such as terrorism or drug trafficking.
In New Zealand, by contrast, selling or supplying restricted firearms to unauthorised people carries a jail penalty of up to three years in jail. The illegal sale of prohibited firearms or magazines (such as the type used in the Christchurch terror attack) carries a penalty of up to five years. The prison sentence for supplying someone subject to a firearms prohibition order can now be up to seven years.
These changes, made in the aftermath of the Christchurch attacks, are at least an improvement. In 2018, the man who supplied Quinn Patterson with the military-style weapons he used to murder two people received only 12 months’ home detention.
Minimum amounts of metal in all firearms
A particularly clever US law – renewed four times since it was first signed by Ronald Reagan in 1988 – is the Undetectable Firearms Act. This makes it illegal to manufacture, import, sell, possess, transfer or receive any firearm not detectable by walk-through security systems.
Every gun must contain enough metal to set off X-ray machines and metal detectors. Also prohibited are any firearms with major components that do not generate an accurate image in standard airport imaging technology.
Although this alone won’t prevent the problem of unauthorised 3D printing of firearms, it is a step in the right direction for enhancing security in places such as court houses and airports. New Zealand has no similar law.
While firearms homicides are well recorded and shared with the police, there are often significant gaps in the data due to firearms injury reporting being optional.
Health professionals in New Zealand are only required to report an injury if they believe someone has a health condition that should prevent them holding a firearms licence.
But mandatory reporting of firearm injuries by medical professionals is common in a number of comparable countries. In the US, there are reporting requirements in 48 out of 50 states.
Mandatory reporting of all firearms injuries helps authorities track the extent and nature of wrongful firearms use. It can also prompt police visits and checks on the gun owner to ensure they are still “fit and proper” since their last licence renewal.
Despite these benefits – and the fact that mandatory reporting of firearms injuries by health professionals was recommended by the royal commission into the Christchurch terror attack – the government declined to take the matter further.
Revisiting the Arms Act presents a unique opportunity to make New Zealand safer. The first step is to look at what other countries can teach us. And while it may seem counterintuitive, and despite all the faults in its very liberal system, the US still has some ideas we should consider adopting.
