This is something that is part of a suite of reforms that the government is bringing in to help crack down on gangs. It's the job of the Justice Select Committee, which is made-up of all parties, to take into account the views of citizens who make submissions to consider them, to consider the legislation, to make sure it's good legislation that it's intended to do what it says it's going to do, that there are no unintended consequences as a result of the legislation. And as you can imagine, there's a bit of toing and froing on it.
But it made me think too about one of the great mysteries and conundrums in my life, and that is why police and licensed firearms users in this country aren't besties, because you're both on the same side. You're law abiding, guarantee the vast majority of both groups enjoy the outdoors. Many police would enjoy going hunting. You're not into thugs and bullies and law breakers, that's not what you're about. You're on the side of the angels, you know how to handle a weapon, unlike most other groups in the country. You enjoy the outdoors, you understand the need for firearms where other groups might not, and yet so many times when the issue of how best to manage the firearms inventory in this country and how to manage access to firearms comes up, police and firearms users end up metaphorically yelling at each other across a divide while the bad guys continue the drive by shootings. In a way, it's a colossal diversion for the unlawful, who just sit back, grab the popcorn, watch the licensed firearms users in the different lobby groups and the police yell at each other. And then once they scoff down the popcorn, a little light drive by shooting before a drive through at Macca’s and home, and that's a good day done if you're a gangster. And none of the words, and none of the legislation, and none of the argy bargy and the lobbying has affected them one little bit.
So we've got the firearms prohibition orders legislation Amendment Bill being discussed and the Justice Select Committee has recommended softening it, restricting what can be the subject of a warrantless search. They used as an example if somebody who owned a hotel and was under a firearms prohibitions order, you couldn't search all the rooms in the hotel. They’d have to be due reason to search the rooms, you couldn't just have a blanket policy of searching every single room in the hotel.
The bill is part of the Government’s crackdown on gangs, the FPO's are meant to place restrictions on high-risk individuals by reducing the likelihood of them accessing firearms. Now, I have a problem with the basic premise of that. If introducing a piece of legislation did indeed reduce the likelihood of a gangster getting a gun, go for it. But given what we know about how gangsters access their firearms, given what we know about the illegal importation and trade of all sorts of firearms that come into this country down through the South Pacific, you can get anything you like – birds, guns, drugs, probably ancient relics, you name it, it can be smuggled into the country and there's just no way of keeping tabs on it. So sure, bring in your arms prohibition order. I see you your firearms prohibition order and raise you six containers coming in from South America or China.
FPO's are already possible under legislation that was introduced from the previous government. And they thought, oh, voters are quite serious about this law and order thing, aren't they? Best we do something about it. Now 30 FPO's had been issued in the first 15 months of the law taking effect, eight of which were to gang members. The government's new bill would give police new warrantless search powers and pivot FPO's more towards gang members and their associates. They'd also be applicable to a much wider range of people, up to 3 1/2 times as many under the current law, because lower-level offences would be included. But the Justice Select Committee wants to see some of those provisions scaled back, fearing it will give the police too many powers.
Nicole McKee, who's the Associate Justice Minister, says she understands the concerns of the committee but ultimately the government wants guns out of the hands of those who are doing the most harm.
“Some of the things that they have talked about is they're looking at who's captured by firearms prohibition orders. They want to decrease the number of eligible offenses, and they've got some concerns around the warrantless searches. And I take on board what they say. Some of it I agree with, some of it I don't, but at the end of the day, we need to stop the drive by shootings of innocent families that are being held to ransom by gangs and their illegal use of these weapons.”
And again, this is my sticking point. If legislation could do that, fill your boots, draft as many laws as you like. But until you can stop basically importation at will of anything anybody in the criminal underworld wants, it's utterly, utterly pointless. I mean, sure, give them the powers of search so they can have a look, that's great. But a Firearms Prohibition Order won't be worth the paper it's printed on. I suppose it sets up a process so that if you've got a Firearms Prohibitions Order against you, it means that the police can then trigger the search, but it's not going to stop you having a firearm.
Does anybody seriously think it's going to stop the shootings that are taking place? And you've now got innocent collateral who are being used in the drive by shootings, the parents of gangsters, the siblings of gangsters, the children of gangsters, they're all getting caught up in it as well.
So sure, bring in your firearms prohibition order, will that keep guns out of the hands of gangsters? Absolutely not.
Kerre McIvor, is a journalist, radio presenter, author and columnist. Currently hosts the Kerre Woodham mornings show on Newstalk ZB - where this article was sourced.
So we've got the firearms prohibition orders legislation Amendment Bill being discussed and the Justice Select Committee has recommended softening it, restricting what can be the subject of a warrantless search. They used as an example if somebody who owned a hotel and was under a firearms prohibitions order, you couldn't search all the rooms in the hotel. They’d have to be due reason to search the rooms, you couldn't just have a blanket policy of searching every single room in the hotel.
The bill is part of the Government’s crackdown on gangs, the FPO's are meant to place restrictions on high-risk individuals by reducing the likelihood of them accessing firearms. Now, I have a problem with the basic premise of that. If introducing a piece of legislation did indeed reduce the likelihood of a gangster getting a gun, go for it. But given what we know about how gangsters access their firearms, given what we know about the illegal importation and trade of all sorts of firearms that come into this country down through the South Pacific, you can get anything you like – birds, guns, drugs, probably ancient relics, you name it, it can be smuggled into the country and there's just no way of keeping tabs on it. So sure, bring in your arms prohibition order. I see you your firearms prohibition order and raise you six containers coming in from South America or China.
FPO's are already possible under legislation that was introduced from the previous government. And they thought, oh, voters are quite serious about this law and order thing, aren't they? Best we do something about it. Now 30 FPO's had been issued in the first 15 months of the law taking effect, eight of which were to gang members. The government's new bill would give police new warrantless search powers and pivot FPO's more towards gang members and their associates. They'd also be applicable to a much wider range of people, up to 3 1/2 times as many under the current law, because lower-level offences would be included. But the Justice Select Committee wants to see some of those provisions scaled back, fearing it will give the police too many powers.
Nicole McKee, who's the Associate Justice Minister, says she understands the concerns of the committee but ultimately the government wants guns out of the hands of those who are doing the most harm.
“Some of the things that they have talked about is they're looking at who's captured by firearms prohibition orders. They want to decrease the number of eligible offenses, and they've got some concerns around the warrantless searches. And I take on board what they say. Some of it I agree with, some of it I don't, but at the end of the day, we need to stop the drive by shootings of innocent families that are being held to ransom by gangs and their illegal use of these weapons.”
And again, this is my sticking point. If legislation could do that, fill your boots, draft as many laws as you like. But until you can stop basically importation at will of anything anybody in the criminal underworld wants, it's utterly, utterly pointless. I mean, sure, give them the powers of search so they can have a look, that's great. But a Firearms Prohibition Order won't be worth the paper it's printed on. I suppose it sets up a process so that if you've got a Firearms Prohibitions Order against you, it means that the police can then trigger the search, but it's not going to stop you having a firearm.
Does anybody seriously think it's going to stop the shootings that are taking place? And you've now got innocent collateral who are being used in the drive by shootings, the parents of gangsters, the siblings of gangsters, the children of gangsters, they're all getting caught up in it as well.
So sure, bring in your firearms prohibition order, will that keep guns out of the hands of gangsters? Absolutely not.
Kerre McIvor, is a journalist, radio presenter, author and columnist. Currently hosts the Kerre Woodham mornings show on Newstalk ZB - where this article was sourced.
3 comments:
Wonder how many guns are in the hands of local Islamist, and growing?
After all the honest decent firearms owning citizens had handed in their weapons after the Christchurch massacre, did the police force open the gates on the gang headquarters and confiscate the firearms there ?
No, and why not ?
Maybe ask Cuddles Coster ?
Ever since then, gang violence and firearm offenses have been their worst since pre 1840 during the Musket Wars.
Now it looks like after the recent Wairoa skirmishes of that continued warfare, hatchets and axes will need to be licensed.
Warrantless searches of legal firearms owner properties is an existing part of the Labour Govt firearms law change, but now we need to have limits placed on searches of people who are not only unlicensed but actually already deemed particularly unsafe to have a firearm? This is why the licensed firearms users feel victimised by legislation and the judiciary, we are treated worse than the criminals are.
Post a Comment
Thanks for engaging in the debate!
Because this is a public forum, we will only publish comments that are respectful and do NOT contain links to other sites. We appreciate your cooperation.