Since the Christchurch mosque attacks the New Zealand Government has tackled head-on the menace posed by military style weapons in the hands of ordinary citizens.
Assault Weapon Buyback and Amnesty
Following the swift and effective restriction on possession of these weapons, the compensation scheme for firearms, parts and magazines implemented by the Arms (Prohibited Firearms, Parts and Magazines) Amendment Act 2019(link is external) is well underway.
Last week, the Minister of Police, Hon Stuart Nash, proactively released a number of papers, including Cabinet papers and advice to Ministers, which is now publicly available on the Police website: https://www.police.govt.nz/about-us/publication/proactive-release-papers-relating-development-buy-back-scheme
At present, 6,831 firearms have been handed in, involving approximately 4,200 people and compensation in the order of $12.5 million has been made. This is part of the Government’s decision to set aside $208 million, topped up if necessary, for payments and administration of the scheme.
As New Zealand grapples with this difficult issue in its own way, it is worth considering why the Government acted in this way, to remove the most dangerous weapons from circulation. The reason – to improve public safety and to protect its citizens. That after all is its role.
The efforts to deal with the menace of assault weapons in the hands of ordinary citizens takes on added significance when we look at the terrible carnage being inflicted on ordinary Americans going about their lives; in just the last week – in California, Texas and now Ohio.
Second Amendment
I am not qualified to comment on American law and certainly not on American gun law. However, a recent article by Joel Mathis, in The Week, “The Second Amendment has failed America” https://theweek.com/articles/856890/second-amendment-failed-america certainly puts the debate in perspective.
According to Mr Mathis, a relevant authority in relation to the gun rights is the Supreme Court decision in District of Columbia v Heller 554 U. S. (2008). I had a look at the decision. Writing the majority judgment, Justice Antonin Scalia explained the constitutional basis for individual gun rights. He expressed the view that the Second Amendment of the Constitution protects an individual’s right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, on the basis that citizens are entitled “to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.” However, as Joel Mathis points out, the evidence in the US shows that lawful gun owners are more likely to kill themselves than they are to kill an intruder, that they are more likely to kill a family member than they are to kill an intruder or assailant and that, in fact, they very seldom use their weapons in self-defence at all. This suggests that the self-defence rationale for the right to possess a firearm might be questionable.
The Heller decision is interesting in other respects. The question before the Court was whether a District of Columbia prohibition on the possession of usable handguns in the home violated the Second Amendment. According to the head-note of the decision:
“Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of fire- arms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.”
Dangerous and Unusual Weapons
Reflecting on these words, while no doubt there is much more to this than meets the eye, I would have thought that this statement makes it clear that the Second Amendment, like any other law, has its limits and no one has the right to carry any weapon as and when they choose. Further, it indicates that the principle should apply to “dangerous and unusual weapons” which, at least in my book, military assault weapons are. But then again, I assume that if the matter was that simple, we wouldn’t be discussing the terrible loss of innocent lives in California, Texas and Ohio.
