Michael Wood and Parliament’s Finance and Expenditure Committee have done an outstanding job and have reported back the Arms (Prohibited Firearms, Magazines, and Parts) Amendment Bill in the timeframe originally planned.
12,953 submissions were received. 60% of submissions analysed were supportive, 26% opposed and the balance made more complex comments.
Few changes have been made to the Bill. Radio New Zealand has the details:
The Finance and Expenditure Select Committee has recommended only minor changes to the government bill banning semi-automatic rifles.
The committee finished its deliberations [yesterday] and published its report on the bill [yesterday] evening.
The report recommends changing the bill so pest controllers can use semi-automatic rifles on private land, rather than only in areas managed by the Department of Conservation.
It also calls for an exemption allowing people to keep heirloom weapons, so long as they are made inoperable by removing a vital part to be stored at a separate location kept secure by police.
The Green Party noted it considered this exemption to be at odds with the purpose of the amendment, and called for collectors’ firearms to be made permanently inoperable, despite the reduction in value this would entail.
The committee rejected calls to exempt competitive shooters from the ban because that would allow more semi-automatic firearms to remain in circulation.
David Seymour complained about the process being rushed. Perhaps if he had rushed into Parliament last week he could have made things more difficult for the Government although the result would no doubt have been the same.
And there was support from interesting corners. From the summary of submissions:
The majority of members of Rural Women New Zealand (Inc.) also supported the Government’s ban on military-style semi-automatics and assault rifles. The majority of their members (60%) did not believe semi-automatic firearms had a place on farms, and further supported the classification of prohibited firearms as set out in the Bill.
National filed a minority report. I agree with their concern at the bill allowing for changes of definitions of ammunition being able to be made by order in council. It should be in parliament passed law.
Also the act contains “Henry VIII clauses” which allow the Government to amend the primary Act by regulation. Again this is bad practice although understandable in the circumstances.
They also regret that MSSAs will not be able to be used in sporting contests. I find it hard to imagine a legitimate sporting contest that involves the use of MSSAs.
Parliamentary debate on the bill is due today.
Powered by WPtouch Mobile Suite for WordPress