The Right to Own Guns For Self Defense in New Zealand

New Zealand law allows for kiwis to keep and use firearms for defense.

Sound crazy?

Because the Police repeatedly specify that that is NOT a legitimate reason for applying for a firearms license. Right?

This from their website:

rules

This from their arms code:

rrtr.PNG

This becomes the common understanding……

wik

But is is true?

1 – 2 -3

Look at this New Zealand law from 1846…..

s1. … Provided always that nothing herein contained shall extend or be construed to extend to prevent any person from carrying arms for the defence of his person or for sporting as by law he might before the passing of this Ordinance.

Right. There is our starting point.

The Kiwi Gun Blog asked Police where IN LAW this acknowledged right was lost.

They pointed us to the Thorpe Report.

Apparently they didn’t give that a lot of thought.

The ‘Report’ does argue against the possession of guns for self defense in New Zealand BUT – that is all it does.

Before then making the following suggestion:

RECOMMENDATION 1 That the new Firearms Act specifically provide that self-defence is not a legitimate purpose for the acquisition of firearms.

So we know that we HAD the right to self defense.

Then a judge CONFIRMED that we STILL had the right in 1997. When the Thorpe report was released.

We know that this recommendation – along with most of his other idiot ideas – was NEVER progressed to legislation since then.

The fact that Thorp recommends that it be included in legislation shows that it does not exist in present legislation.

What this means…

So we STILL have that right.

This surely means that Police should accept the desire to possess a firearm for self defense as a legitimate reason for applying for a gun license. For applying for a import permit. For a permit to procure and for possession of a firearm in many circumstances.

The Blog is not advocating a ‘Wild west’ situation. Rather drawing attention to this situation so people understand how rights become lost.

The OPINION of SOME Police became POLICY. 

That was passed off as the new way of things under the colour of law. An act done under the appearance of legal authorization, when in fact, no such right existed.

All too soon that Policy can indeed become LAW. As Thorpe wanted.

To quote Lord Cambden: “If it is law it will be in our books. If it is not to be found there, it is NOT Law.”

As our Police can NOT show any reason that we can not possess firearms for defense – we can.

Indeed we can show New Zealand law saying that we CAN.

19489693_10154883744644926_1461205589_n

Other law could prevent a citizen from carrying a weapon in public. But the fact is that many a far flung farm would benefit from a defensive tool. With crime high and violent and Police response time long.

If a citizen can not only match a Policeman’s skill with a firearm – but by far and a way exceed it – why should they not have a gun for this purpose?

It would be a small matter to learn and become expert in the applicable law in this area.

A long overdue strengthening of our self defense laws would of course help.

This could be one area to push back on come the next proposed changes to our gun laws.

Our UN Friends?

The Kiwi Gun Blog has reported about the government using UN regulations as our law.

Part of the document that they use is shown below.

Check out ‘d)’

If they are using this as a guide to our control….. Use it all.

selfd

f3

13 responses to “The Right to Own Guns For Self Defense in New Zealand”

  1. It should also be noted that POLICE carry firearms and Tasers and Pepper Spray to protect themselves and others in public under EXACTLY the same laws – the only difference is that they are exempt from the Arms Act regulatory provisions while – and ONLY while, in performance of their duties.

    Like

  2. It may be a requirement to give aid to Police in under attack , but with what ? With out a ‘Good Samaritan’ law protecting those giving aid, including self defense of others, there is the probability that the person giving aid may be prosecuted by the Police by their OWN statements ; “of not using a firearm in self defense”; which in fact is not law.

    Like

  3. Can we make a push for this ? I think in the current climate, we’ll get more support. Perhaps NZ first could take this on after or even before the election.

    Like

    1. Peters has just relegated Richard Prosser. Thus pigs might fly.

      Like

      1. That was disappointing.

        Like

  4. Come to the assistance of the police ? Why would you do that ? Better to walk away with your FAL intact than leave yourself open to police interpretation. Saves on legal costs too. You have to remember that if you have a FAL, in the eyes of the police you are a criminal waiting to happen.

    Like

  5. The last humanoids I’d ever help are the police. Even the “gangsters” can be reasoned with and are approachable.

    The best approach if you see them in trouble is to walk or drive away and say you saw nothing.

    Like

  6. A very fast way to lose your FAL.

    Policing Act 2008
    51 Failing to help Police employee

    (1)

    A Police employee in the lawful execution of his or her duty may, if it is reasonably necessary in the circumstances, ask a person who is 18 years old or older to help the Police employee do 1 or both of the following:
    (a)

    apprehend or secure a person:
    (b)

    convey a person in the employee’s charge to a Police station or other place.

    (2)

    A person who fails to give help, when so asked, commits an offence and is liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $2,000.

    Like

  7. Can you post a link to the 1846 legislation please.

    Like

    1. We have 🙂 Please look at the recent ‘shooters need to compromise’ blog.

      Like

  8. its disgusting that we cant even own pepper spray and tasers for use inside our own homes

    Like

  9. Research has shown that armed defence has served as a deterrent to crime.

    https://www.thoughtco.com/gun-rights-and-self-defense-721344

    A study by professors James D. Wright and Peter Rossi surveyed nearly 2,000 incarcerated felons and concluded that criminals are more worried about running into armed victims than law enforcement.

    According to the Wright-Rossi survey, 34% of the felons responding from state prisons said that they had been “scared off, shot at, wounded or captured” by a victim armed with a firearm. The same percentage said they worried about being fired upon by armed victims, while 57% said they were more concerned with encountering an armed victim than encountering law enforcement officers.

    Like

  10. Note that the 1846 Arms Act s1 in fact acknowleges a pre-existing right – it in no way creates that right.

    That it is the first section in Arms Law from the very early period of the formation of New Zealand as a nation shows how important this was felt to be.

    Indeed the Treaty of Waitangi (1840) – Article the Third advances ALL the rights and privileges of British subjects to the natives of New Zealand – this right to “keep arms for their defence” is one of the auxiliary rights advanced – from Blackstone’s “Commentaries – on Common Law” – the “Fifth auxiliary right”.

    Like

Leave a reply to Bartholomew Cancel reply